JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

          This Revision Petition has been filed by Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh in F.A.  No. 157 of 2015, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed, and the Order of the District Forum was upheld.

2.      The factual background, in brief is that the Complainant was the owner of a Volkswagen car no. CG-15-CQ-4810 which was purchased by obtaining financial assistance from the Respondent No. 2. The Complainant insured the said vehicle with the Petitioner. The vehicle met with an accident on 17.11.2013 between Lakhanpur to Kunwarpur due to which it was badly damaged. The information of the accident was given to Lakhanpur P.S. and also to the Petitioner along with all the necessary documents towards processing the claim. After a spot survey, the vehicle was then taken by the executives of the Petitioner to an authorized service centre in Bilaspur and an amount of Rs. 3,79,767/- was spent on repairing of the vehicle, and the copy of the bill was provided to the Petitioner. The Complainant has alleged that the Petitioner wrongfully rejected the claim vide its letter dated 27.02.2014. Aggrieved by such rejection of his claim, he filed a Complaint before District Forum, Sarguja-Ambikapur.Top of Form

3.      The District Forum vide its Order dated 29.01.2015 in Complaint No. 85 of 2015 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,62,954/- towards as compensation amount @6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, Rs. 4,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards the litigation cost. The Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 14.03.2016, dismissed the same and affirmed the Order of the District Forum.

4.      Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides. Perused the material available on record. Considered;

5.      It is seen that on 11.7.2018, the Division Bench hearing this matter had directed the Complainant to file an Affidavit stating whether the vehicle in question was registered or not.   Vide the same Order, he was also directed to file Certificate of the temporary registration from the concerned R.T.O. in respect of the said vehicle within four weeks.  But such Affidavit was never filed from the Complainant’s side.  Subsequently on 27.8.2021, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the said Complainant/ Respondent No.1 submitted on instructions that the documents were not readily available. Consequently, the Bench directed the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent to file an Affidavit to this effect within one month.  But no Affidavit till date has been filed.  In fact, the Complainant/ Respondent thereafter has altogether absented from the proceedings on the last three dates i.e. 29.5.2023, 9.8.2023 and 13.12.2023, without filing any Affidavit as directed in the aforesaid two Orders.

6.      On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to a copy of the initial information given by the Complainant to the Officer-in-Charge of Lakhanpur Police Station dated 21.11.2013, in which he had mentioned that the accident had taken place at 5.00 A.M. on 17.11.2013.  The receipt endorsed with seal of the Police Station of that date is at the bottom of the concerned letter which is Annexure-G on page 75 of the Paper Book. However, when the Complainant submitted his claim for insurance following the accident, he made interpolation in the copy of the aforesaid letter dated 21.11.2013 delivered to the Police Station by changing the date of accident therein to “19.11.2013” from “17.11.2013”, which activity was found out by the Investigator for the Insurance Company.  The copy of such interpolated letter is at Page No. 76 of the Paper Book. Now, Annexure-H which happens to be the retail Invoice regarding sale/delivery of the vehicle to the Complainant goes to show that it was issued on 1.11.2013, while Annexure-I is the form of receipt of fees (issued by the Chhattisgarh Transport Department) deposited by the Complainant for registration of the vehicle, and it bears the date 18.11.2013, which was therefore 17 days after he had taken delivery of the vehicle.

7.      The Complainant therefore had clearly violated Rule 47 of the Motor Vehicle Rules which required him to apply for registration with the Registering Authority within a period of 7 days from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, and had also violated the provision of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act by driving the vehicle before its registration, since the accident by his own case had taken place on 17.11.2013, while he had deposited the registration fees only a day later i.e. on 18.11.2013, which was obviously done hurriedly in an effort to claim the Insurance amount following such accident.

8.      Further, the failure of the Complainant to furnish the requisite Affidavits and documents as subsequently required from him by this Commission in the earlier Orders dated 29.5.2023, 9.8.2023 and 13.12.2023, have the inescapable effect of leading the Commission to the conclusion that actually no registration of the vehicle had been got done by the Respondent/Complainant when the accident had taken place.

9.      In a similar matter (RP No. 1309 of 2018), this Commission had similarly held that the Complainant in that case was not entitled to any Insurance claim. The relevant extracts from the Order passed in the aforesaid Revision Petition are set out as below –

“17. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of all the decisions cited on behalf of the Petitioner Insurance Company. In this case also, the theft had occurred on the night of 3.12.2012 when the Insured vehicle had itself not been registered. The failure to have the same registered and driven through a public place in taking the same to his own premises from that of Authorised Dealer (Respondent No. 2) certainly was an act which took the matter beyond the protection of the Insurance Policy, and that at the most, the contributory negligence could have been on the part of the Authorised Dealer himself in having delivered custody of the unregistered vehicle to the Complainant for which he could have been liable for proportionate compensation in view of the decision of this Commission in the case of “Ramesh Patel Vs. Manager, Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd., RP No. 1161 of 2015”. But, clearly no liability could have been fastened upon the Petitioner Insurance Company as driving of the vehicle and moving away the same before its registration was effected in accordance with law, took it outside the protection of the Insurance Policy.”

10.    For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission is of the opinion that both the Ld. Fora below had acted with material irregularity in allowing the complaint of the Respondent No. 1 and dismissing the Appeal filed against the Order of the Ld. District Forum, since the vehicle itself is not found to have been registered as required by law, and had also been unlawfully driven through a public place by the Complainant.

11.    Consequently, the present Revision Petition is allowed after setting aside the impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission, and the original complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant accordingly stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

12.    Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.