The repudiation of an insurance claim for a stolen vehicle solely on the ground of non-registration under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is unsustainable when the vehicle was not being driven at the time of the theft, as Section 39 only prohibits driving unregistered vehicles in public places.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:

a) Direct the Opposite party to pay the Claimed amount as per IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.26,74,656/- along with interest @ 11% p.a. from the date of filing the present: complaint till its actual realization.

b) Direct the Opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/ towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members.

c) Direct the Opposite party to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.

d) pass such any other order/s as this Hon'ble commission deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 06.07.2016, the Complainant purchased a motor vehicle, namely Toyota Fortuner 3DL 4×4 bearing temporary Registration No. HR 99 ZM Temp 6820, having chassis No. MBJ11JV51050451510161, for a total consideration of Rs. 28,37,674/- from an authorized dealer, Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., situated at 3 KM Stone, Ambala Road, Near New Bye Pass, Kaithal, Haryana. The said vehicle was temporarily registered for the period from 06.07.2016 to 05.08.2016, and the Complainant had also applied for a special registration number. Thereafter, on 14.07.2016, the vehicle was duly insured with the Opposite Party Insurance Company under a Private Car Package Policy bearing No. 2311201443719500000 for the period from 30.06.2016 to 29.06.2017, upon payment of a premium amounting to Rs. 69,002/-.

3. It is the case of the Complainant that on 21.08.2016, the insured vehicle, which had been parked outside the residence of his friend, was allegedly stolen by unknown persons. Consequently, FIR No. 024467/2016 under Section 379 IPC came to be registered at the e-Police Station, M.V. Theft, Crime Branch, Delhi, against unidentified persons. The FIR records that the vehicle was properly parked and secured at the time of the incident. The Complainant duly intimated the Opposite Party regarding the theft on 22.08.2016 through the concerned insurance agent and furnished a copy of the FIR. However, despite repeated follow-ups, including communications through an official namely Sh. Vikas Kumar, no effective steps were taken by the Opposite Party to process the claim.

4. Subsequently, on 10.11.2016, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered within the prescribed period of one month from the date of purchase, allegedly constituting a violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 01.02.2017 seeking settlement of the insured claim; however, the Opposite Party neither acceded to the request nor furnished any reply. Being aggrieved by the said inaction and repudiation, the Complainant has approached this Commission by way of the present complaint.

5. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and filed the written statement whereby contending that the present complaint should be dismissed for the non-joinder of the necessary party. The counsel for the Opposite Party also contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated due to the violation of section 39 of the motor vehicle act. The counsel for the Opposite P