JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      The only question involved in this case is whether the complainant, Shri Shyam Singh Paikara is entitled to get claim from the opposite party-Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. which was repudiated on the ground that vehicle in question was not registered with RTO. The State Commission has decided this case in well-reasoned judgment and has referred to Section 39, Section 43(1) & 43(2) and Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and placed reliance on the celebrated authorities of the Supreme Court and National Commission reported in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (7) SCC 40; Bhagwat Vs. The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., IV (2014) CPJ 698 (NC); Din Dayal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., I(2013) CPJ 10 (NC) and Niranjan Kumar Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., II(2011) CPJ 64 (NC).

2.      The State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the OPs, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. We are of the considered view that the State Commission nowhere missed the wood for trees. We add our voice with the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition. There is also delay of 54 days which too has not been explained to the satisfaction of this Commission. 

3.      It is made clear that the counsel for the petitioner wanted date after date. Even today he was not ready to argue and made false allegation against the District Forum that it was not giving documents to him. This revision petition is vexatious and frivolous and, therefore, we impose costs of Rs.10,000/- under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid A/c-NCDRC within 90 days otherwise it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till realization.