Bela M. Trivedi ORDER
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1. Counsel for parties were heard, with their consent, for final disposal of the appeal. The Appellant (hereby "insurer") questions the judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 ("hereafter the NCDRC"). In the impugned order, the NCDRC dismissed the Appellant's revision petition, that challenged the order2 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (hereafter "the State Commission").
2. The Respondent-complainant obtained an insurance policy3 from the insurer for his Bolero car, somewhere in Punjab, though he was a resident of Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. The vehicle had a temporary registration (No. PB-11-T-5101 from 20-06-2011 to 19-07-2011). The sum insured was ` 6,17,800/-. The temporary registration of the vehicle, however, expired on 19-07-2011.
3. As the Respondent/complainant was engaged in business as a private contractor, for business purposes he had to be outside the city. On 28-07-2011 the complainant went to Jodhpur for business purposes; and stayed in Geeta Guest House at night. Whilst there, his vehicle was parked outside the guest house premises. When the Respondent awoke in the morning, he found that the Bolero car had been stolen. He lodged a first information report (FIR) on 29-07-2011 with PS Ratanada, Jodhpur alleging commission of offences Under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. However, on 30-09-2011 the police lodged a final report stating that the vehicle was untraceable.
4. The Respondent claimed the loss, from the Appellant/insurer. The insurance claim, however was repudiated by order dated 23-01-2013 on three grounds:
(i) Intimation of theft of vehicle was given to the insurer after delay which was in violation of the policy condition.
(ii) The temporary registration of the vehicle expired on 19-07-2011 and the Respondent did not get the vehicle permanently registered; and
(iii) The complainant left the vehicle unattended outside the guesthouse in violation of the policy conditions.
5. Aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim the Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum Consumer Protection, Shri Ganganagar (hereafter the "District Forum") for a direction that the insurer ought to pay him the sum insured for the vehicle with rent amount of ` 1,40,000/- and also claimed relief for mental agony and costs of litigation.
6. The insurer's position before the District Forum was that till the incidence of theft, the complainant's vehicle was not registered which was in violation of conditions of insurance policy; the insurer therefore requested for dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum dismissed the complaint against the insurer while observing that on 28-07-2011 (date of the incident) the vehicle's temporary registration had expired and relying upon two previous orders of the NCDRC had concluded that if at the time of theft, the vehicle was not registered then the claim was not payable to the complainant. ........