Oral

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.3075 of  2017

Sriram General Insurance Company Limited,

E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Areas, Sitapura,

Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302022 Branch Office 16,

Chintal House, Station Road, Lucknow through

its Manager.                                                         …Appellant.                                                                         

                                       Versus

1- Deepak Kumar s/o Yogendra Kumar Paltani,

    R/o House no.6-K, Bilram Gate, Gali no.1,

    Kashganj, District, Kashganj.

2- Maindola Royal Enfield, 7-10, Exhibition Ground

    Market, Opposite Banna Devi Police Thana, G.T.

    Road, Aitya, Distt. Aligarh (U.P.) through its

    Manager.                                                       ..Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President.

2- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Anand Bhargava, Advocate for appellant.

None for the respondents.

Date   29.5.2023

JUDGMENT

Justice Ashok Kumar, President: The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kashganj in complaint case no.5 of 2017   dated 7.9.2017.

The brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the complainant being Bullet Thunder world motorcycle 350 cc has been purchased of which a temporary registration was issued by the Registering Authority dated 26.2.2016. The cost of the vehicle in question was Rs.1,43,708.00 and the temporary registered vehicle was insured by the appellant insurance company for the period w.e.f. 26.2.2016 to 25.6.2017. It is alleged by the complainant in its complaint

(2)

that the said vehicle was stolen on 6.6.2016. The report with regard to theft was registered and the information was also provided by the complainant to the insurance company. However, the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant by issuing letter dated 25.11.2016

The condition stipulated in the policy incorporated in the said letter of repudiation, is as follows:

“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 number”.

The submission of the ld. counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the vehicle was stolen when the temporary registration was expired and the permanent registration of the vehicle was not got by the complainant, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly not accepted. However, the District Forum has provided otherwise by allowing the complaint and by passing the illegal order.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Anand Bhargawa. Even after due notice, no one put appearance on behalf of the respondents/complainant. Hence, service upon the respondents deemed sufficient by passing the earlier order.

After hearing the ld. counsel for the appellant, we find that the impugned order of the District Forum is illegal, as such can not sustain. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.

(3)

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

         If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the same may be returned to the appellant as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date within 2 months.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.     

(Justice Ashok Kumar)  (Rajendra Singh) (Sushil Kumar)

          President                       Member              Member

Jafri, PA I. 

Court  1