ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 266 of 2016, styled as Sh. Omdutt Vs. Sansaar Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the appellant and respondent No. 2, who were opposite parties to the consumer complaint, to pay the price of the subject vehicle amounting to Rs. 59,440/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 02.06.2016 till payment, besides to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards counsel fee and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that on 26.02.2016, respondent No. 1 / complainant had purchased a Honda Activa 3G DLX (Pearl Amazing White) from respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 on payment of consideration amount in cash. The said vehicle was allotted registration No. UK-08-AL-2939. The aforesaid vehicle was insured with the appellant / opposite party No. 2 (insurance company) for the period from 27.02.2016 to 26.02.2017 at an IDV of Rs. 47,480/-. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant was assured by respondent No. 2 that the registration certificate of the vehicle would be soon delivered to him, but inspite of repeated visits to respondent No. 2, the registration certificate of the vehicle was not provided / handed over to the complainant. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 10.03.2016 and got extensively damaged. At the time of accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by Sh. Sanjay Dutt, brother of the complainant. The complainant lodged claim with the insurance company, but the same was not settled. The complainant through his counsel sent legal notice dated 07.05.2016 to the appellant and respondent No. 2, but to no avail. Thus, the consumer complaint was submitted by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The appellant / opposite party No. 2 (insurance company) filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that on the date of accident, i.e., 10.03.2016, the vehicle was not registered; that the vehicle was being plied on public road without registration, which is prohibited under Section 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 (seller of the vehicle) did not submit any written statement before the District Commission, hence vide order dated 02.02.2017, their opportunity of filing the written statement was closed by the District Commission.

5. The District Commission, after hearing learned counsel for respondent No. 1 / complainant and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2020 in the above terms. On the date of arguments, none did appear before the District Commission on behalf of the appellant as well as respondent No. 2, who were impleaded as opposite parties to the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the insurance company has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission as an appellant.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Vide order dated 02.11.2023, it was directed that the appeal shall be heard ex-parte against respondents. We have also gone through the written arguments dated 07.05.2026 (Paper Nos. 74 to 82) filed on behalf of the appellant.

7. On 18.05.2022, Sh. Ravi Bh