M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2265 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 08.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.37/2016 by District Commission, Indore-1)

GANESH, S/O JANKILAL VERMA,

R/O 215/3, NEHRU NAGAR,

INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                                             … APPELLANT.

                       Versus

1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

    VIJAY NAGAR, ABOVE APNA SWEETS,

    SECOND FLOOR, INDORE (M.P.)

2. RUKMANI MOTORS PVT. LTD.

    B-2, HIG, LIG CHOURAHA, INDORE.                                                                   … RESPONDENTS.                               

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Ajmal Tirmizi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           None for the respondent no.2.

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 09.12.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated  08.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.37/2016, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant is an owner of motorcycle-Bajaj Pulsar-150, bearing engine no. CED 15125 and chassis no. ECD 37026, which he had purchased from the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.2).  The subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 -insurance company (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company).  During currency of the policy cover, the subject vehicle was stolen on 01.08.2014. FIR was lodged in the matter and the insurance company was duly intimated.  It is alleged that despite the aforesaid, the appellant was not given insurance amount of the subject vehicle.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of respondents, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.  

3.                The insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the appellant’s vehicle was not registered when the alleged theft took place.  The appellant was using the vehicle in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MVAct’).  The claim is not payable as per policy terms and conditions and therefore the insurance company has rightly denied the claim.  There is no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company.

-3-

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on part of the respondents.

5.                In Chapter IV, Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with registration of motor vehicles provides thus:

39. Necessity for registration—No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration                           

of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:

                   Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle