According to the complaint, brief facts are that on 27.2.2012,  the complainant had purchased a vehicle Motor-cycle Make Hero Honda Splender  bearing temporary No.HR99KW(T)-0035,Model 2012 and got it  insured with opposite parties. The complainant has alleged that on 19.4.2012 at about 1.30 p.m.  the aforesaid motor-cycle was stolen by some unknown person  while it was parked outside the Telmos Company, Delhi Road, Hisar.   The complainant traced the motor-cycle at his own level, but to no effect, so he lodged a FIR No.211  dated 20.4.2012  under Section 379 IPC with Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. The complainant gave intimation with regard to theft of the motor-cycle to the opposite party No.2 at Hisar.  The complainant submitted the claim with the opposite parties after completing all the required formalities.  The complainant requested the opposite parties several times to pay the claim, but to no effect. The complainant sent legal notice dated 27.5.2013  to the opposite parties through his counsel Shri Sandeep Singh Malik, Advocate, Hisar. The opposite party No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 7.6.2013 on the grounds that the claim of the complainant was not covered under the statutory terms and conditions of the policy. That delay in lodging the FIR and intimating the company late was fatal one and it was in violation of terms and condition No.1 of the policy; the period of temporary registration no. had expired on 26.3.2012 and the said vehicle was being driven without certificate of registration which was against the mandatory provisions of M.V.Act. The complainant has alleged that the reasons put forth by the opposite parties for repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant are false, frivolous and baseless and prayed that  the opposite parties be directed to  settle the claim of the complainant and to make the payment of the same with interest and also to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

 2.      Opposite parties filed their reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the alleged theft was of 19.4.2012 and intimation was given to the opposite parties on 23.4.2012 i.e. after a period of 4 days. The complainant has violated the terms and condition No.1 of the  policy and claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 7.6.2013. On the instruction of the opposite parties, Sh.Amit Jain, Advocate Hisar, who investigate the vehicle and submitted his report. That the  period of temporary registration number had expired on 26.3.2012. That on the date of  theft, vehicle was being used without certificate of registration which  was  against the mandatory provisions of M.V.Act. That the present complaint is not maintainable at all. The opposite parties have  averred that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. Rests of the allegations as alleged in the complaint are denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of  opposite parties. In the end, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3.       In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his own

supporting affidavit, copy of Form of Application Registration Vehicle Ex.C-1; Copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex.C-2; copy of  Sale certificate Ex.C-3; copy of Splender Hero Honda Motors Limited Ex.C-4; copy of vikrant Automobiles bill dated 27.2.2012 Ex.C-5, copy of form No.60 Ex.C-6; copy of affidavit of  complainant Ex.C-7; copy of policy schedule Ex.C-8; copy of FIR No.211 dated 20.4.2012 Ex.C-9; copy of draft copy Ex.C-10; copy of  untraced report of the vehicle Ex.C-11;  copy of legal notice dated 27.5.2013 Ex.C-12; copy of postal receipts Ex.C-13 and copy of repudiation letter dated 7.6.2013 Ex.C-14.

4.       In reply thereto, opposite parties  have placed on record copy of repudiation letter  dated 7.6.2012 Ex.R-1; copy of investigation report dated 7.1.2013  Ex.R-2; copy of statement of complainant Pawan Kumar Ex.R-3; copy of FIR No.211 dated 20.4.2012 Ex.R-4; copy of driving licence Ex.R-5; copy of bill dated 27.2.2012 Ex.R-6; copy of Form No.21 dated 27.2.2012 Ex.R-7;  copy of  reply of notice dated 12.8.2013 Ex.R-8; copy of  receipt of reply notice Ex.R-9; original motor claim form Ex.R-10; copy of policy schedule Ex.R-11 and also supporting affidavit of its Divisional Manager  Mr. Tribhuvan Sharma Ex.R-12 and copy of affidavit of  Amit Jain, advocate, who investigate the matter Ex.R-13.

5.       We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for both the parties.

6.       The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant could not apply for the registration of the vehicle due to his illness. He submitted that the claim of the complainant has been illegally repudiated by the opposite parties.

7.       The counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of the reply. She submitted that there is delay of one day in lodging the FIR, and delay of four days in intimation to the Insurance Company, regarding the theft of motorcycle by the complainant. She further submitted that the temporary registration certificate of the motorcycle in question was expired on 26.3.2012  and the complainant did not obtain the registration certificate of the vehicle and as on date of theft the vehicle was without his registration number. Therefore, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and no claim is payable.

8.       In support of his contention she has referred the following judgments Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mahender Jat,1(2015)CPJ,74(NC); New India Assurance Company Ltd. versus Trilochan Jane, IV(2012)CPJ,441(NC); Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Versus Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,1(2012)CPJ 559(NC); Budha Ganesh Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., 2014(1)CPC,402; Ramesh Chandra  Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2014(1)CPC,335; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ram Avtar, 2014(1)CPC,13; Parveen Dalal Versus Oriental Insurance Company & Ors.; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Panchsheel Jewellers,1(2013)CPJ,38(NC) and Saleena Rani Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Another,1(2015)CPJ,220(NC).

9.       Admittedly, the motorcycle in question was stolen on 19.4.2012 and FIR No.211 dated 20.4.2012 was registered with the concerned police station and the insurance company was intimated about the theft on 23.4.2012. The motorcycle in question was purchased by the complainant on 27.2.2012 and the temporary registration certificate was valid upto 26.3.2012. The complainant was supposed to obtain the permanent registration certificate within the stipulated period. The motorcycle in question was stolen on 19.4.2012, when the complainant had gone to meet his brother in Telemos Company, Delhi Road,  Hisar. At that time, the vehicle was being used without registration. The ratio of judgment rendered in case of “Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Versus Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,1(2012)CPJ,559(NC)  by Hon’ble National Commission, applies to the instant case. In this case the Hon’ble National Commission held “Registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of the law. The relevant provision, Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988,reads:

“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 in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

                  Clearly therefore, till the vehicle receives this certification of registration from the competent authority, it is not legally useable on roads. Averments in the complaint petition itself show that the motorcycle was used by the complainant for dropping his uncle to the Railway Station, Satna and that the incident had happened on its return journey. This use of the motorcycle was in clear violation of the statutory requirement of registration.

 10.    The counsel for the complainant to bring to our notice any case law contrary to it and in support of his contention. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we hold that the opposite parties were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is, therefore, dismissed devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

Dated:04.09.2015