Complainant Rajesh Sharma through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to give the claim of theft of vehicle approximately Rs.50,000/- or give the new vehicle to him and pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a vehicle Active 3g on 10.9.2015 having Chasis No.8242978 & Engine No.2241218 from the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 issued Form No.21 to him. Thus, he is consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite party no.2 applied for the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and charged the extra amount for Registration charges on 10.09.2015 but the opposite party no.2 applied for the registration certificate of the vehicle very late i.e. on 13.01.2016 and the Provisional Registration Mark PB-06AE was issued to his vehicle by the opposite party no.2. The said vehicle was duly insured by the opposite party no.3 on 10.09.2015 which is valid upto 09.09.2016. The said vehicle has been theft on 10.01.2016 near Gurdwara Sahib village Chhote Ghuman Tehsil and Distt. Gurdaspur. He has also lodged a report in P.S. Guman Kalan in this regard. He approached to the opposite party no.3 for the claim of his theft vehicle as it was fully insured by the opposite party o.3 but they refused to give his claim of theft as the vehicle was not registered on the theft date. He has further pleaded that he gave the registration charges to the opposite party no.2 on the date of its purchase i.e. on 10.09.2015 and it was the duty of opposite party no.2 to apply for the registration certificate of the said vehicle in time and he is not at fault in it. Moreover, the vehicle was also duly insured on the same day by the opposite party no.3. He approached so many times to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 for the claim of his theft amount but of no use. He has also sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 8.11.2016 through his counsel but no reply has been received. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint. 

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant was violating the condition of Motor Vehicle Act by plying the vehicle without “Registration Certificate, as such complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; the complainant intimated the company for loss of the vehicle on 22.01.2016 against loss dated 10.01.2016 as such it is the violation of terms and condition of the policy and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3 as such the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.3. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant intimated the theft dated 10.1.2016 to the opposite party no.3 on 22.1.2016 after a delay of 11 days which is violation of the policy. After receiving the documents alongwith the intimation of theft, the complainant was also plying the vehicle without and registration number which is the violation of Motor Vehicle Act. Keeping in view of two above mentioned facts and proper application of mind, the opposite party no.3 repudiate the claim of the complainant and intimation of the same was given to the complainant vide letter dated 12.2.2016 as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Notice issued to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have not been received back. Case called several times but none had come present on their behalf. Therefore, opposite parties no.1 and 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.2.2017. On 29.3.2017 Sh.Pardeep Kumar, Adv.has appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and filed his Vakalatnama alongwith application for allowing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to join the proceeding at this stage. In the interest of justice, the application was allowed on 5.4.2017.

5.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.

6.       Sh.Shiv Lal Branch Manager of opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.

7.       We have carefully examined/analyzed all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also intently considered/perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the titled litigants while (at the same time) taking the due judicial-notice of the OP1 (mfrs.) and OP2 vendor’s intermittent non-participation in the proceedings; although (still), we have afforded to provide the full judicious opportunity to them, by way of a close examination and a fairly deduced ‘resume’ upon which to place/base the resultant award under the adjudicatory Act. We observe that the present dispute/complaint has arisen as a result of the alleged ‘repudiation’ (Ex.OP7/Ex.OP8) of the complainant’s insurance ‘theft-claim’ (Ex.OP6) by the OP3 insurers on the ground that the insured vehicle was not ‘registered’ (as on the date of theft) under the Motor Vehicles Act (with the District Transport Authority) in violation of the terms of the related Policy.

8.       We find that the complainant had purchased (Ex.C2) Activa Honda Scooter of OP1 Make from the OP2 Vendor (Ex.C3) and that was insured (Ex.C4) with the OP3 insurers on 10.09.2015, itself. The provisional registration (PB06AE6650) Ex.C6 has been valid from 13.01.2016 to 13.02.2016 whereas the regular registration for the same Registration Number of PB06AE6650 was issued on 13.01.2016 by the competent authority. The Activa Scooter was stolen on 10.01.2017 and the related theft claim was repudiated by the OP3 insurers on account of non-registration of the scooter on that date.

9.       The complainant has in turn pleaded that he had paid all the registration charges etc to the OP2 Vendor (on the date of purchase) and the delay, if any, in applying for registration etc has been on its part and since the scooter was under the valid insurance cover, he was entitled to the theft-claim that has been repudiated, arbitrarily. We find that the OP1 Manufacturer being not a directly-involved party to the instant scooter-sale (in question) is absolved of any statutory liability arising out of the present complaint. Further, the OP2 vendor applied for registration of the ‘scooter’ on behalf of the complainant with the ‘registering authority’ as his (complainant’s) agent and has not been in the role of ‘service provider’ and thus cannot be validly held liable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.     Lastly, we find that the OP3 insurers (Ex.C4/Ex.OP2) had insured the scooter on its date of sale as New Vehicle (sans Registration No., not even its temporary Regd. No.) with simple mention of its Engine and Chassis No., only. No doubt, the registration has been one mandatory time-bound provision in the Motor Vehicles Act but it has its own remedy and a valid registration can be legally done with condonation of delay etc and thus OP3 insurers shall not justifiably repudiate an otherwise valid claim on this flimsy and arbitrary pretext. The non-registration within the prescribed period has not been an irreversible violation and its Challan attracts ‘fine’ only and at the most the insurers can somewhat ‘penalize’ the insured while settling the theft claim but can certainly not deny the same so as to violate the statutory consumer rights of the claimant.                      

11.     Thus, we find that the complainant suffered harassment at the hands of the OP3 insurers who did first arbitrarily delayed and finally repudiated his theft-claim on the pretext of violation of policy terms whereas its had been a simple non-compliance, on time. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present complainant has been entitled to the statutory relief under the applicable Act.

12.     In the light of all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party # 3 (insurers) to settle and pay the theft-claim to the complainant on non-standard basis as 75% of the IDV of the related policy within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise they shall also be liable to pay accrued interest @ 9% PA from the date of the loss of vehicle till actually paid. The parties shall bear their own costs, here.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 

                                                                               (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 18, 2017                                                  Member

*MK*