1.       This Revision Petition, filed by the Insurance Company, is directed against order dated 08.10.2013, passed by the Uttarakahand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Dehradun (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 182 of 2012.  By the said order, the State Commission, with slight modification in the rate of interest and compensation, has affirmed order dated 07.11.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 284 of 2011.  The District Forum, while accepting the complaint filed by the Respondent, had directed the Insurance Company to pay to him a sum of ₹4,23,750/- as damages and a sum of ₹10,000/- towards litigation costs, in respect of the insured motor vehicle, viz., Mahindra Balero, which was stolen.  The District Forum had also directed that if the said amount was not paid within 30 days from the date of the order, the Respondent shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment.

2.       Since the issue raised in the present Revision Petition stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [2014 (10) SCALE 158], we deem it unnecessary to refer to the facts, giving rise to the present Revision Petition, in detail.  It would suffice to note that the Respondent had purchased the said vehicle on 14.02.2011 and had got it insured at Insured Declared Value (IDV) of ₹5,95,758/-.  The policy was for the period from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012.  Unfortunately, the vehicle was stolen on the midnight of 11/12.05.2011 from a parking.  The Respondent lodged an FIR on 12.05.2011.  Since all the efforts to trace out the vehicle had proved futile, the Respondent lodged his claim for indemnification of the loss, under the said policy, with the Insurance Company.  However, the claim was repudiated on the ground that at the time of theft, the vehicle had not been registered with the Registration Authorities, although it had run for over 6000 kms.

3.       As noted above, on the Respondent’s approaching the District Forum for redressal of his grievance relating to the said claim, his claim was allowed on the afore-noted terms.  The Insurance Company’s Appeal was dismissed.  Hence, the present Revision Petition.

4.       We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5.       It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that since the vehicle was not at all registered with the Registration Authorities, there was a clear violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  It is asserted that in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh’s case (supra), the said omission on the part of the Insured was a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company was fully justified in repudiating the claim on the stated ground.

6.       Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, while supporting the decision of the lower Fora, has vehemently urged that the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Narinder Singh’s case (supra).  It is pleaded that the vehicle in question had been temporarily registered and was stolen on the fateful night from a parking, from-where it was to be taken for service to a service station.  According to the learned Counsel, in Narinder Singh (supra) the unregistered vehicle in question had met with an accident while on road.

7.       We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission made by learned Counsel for the Respondent.  Apart from the fact that there is no material on record to show that the vehicle in question was registered with the Registration Authorities on temporary registration number, it is manifest from the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh’s case (supra) that the Hon’ble Court has held that use of an unregistered vehicle on public road is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 but is also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract.  Admittedly, the vehicle had run over 6000 kms. without any registration and was stolen not from the residence of the Respondent but from an outside general parking.  The said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, is in all fours to the facts at hand.

8.       For the afore-stated reasons, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.