State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prince Soorma vs M.D. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. ... on 9 April, 2026
CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 05.04.2018
Date of hearing: 24.11.2025
Date of Decision: 09.04.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO. - 408/2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. PRINCE SOORMA,
S/o VIRENDRA SOORMA,
R/o Z-9, Z-BLOCK, NAVEEN SHAHDARA,
NEAR SHAHDARA NURSING HOME,
DELHI-110032.
(Through: Md. Monazrul Haque Siddiqui, Advocate)
...Complainant
VERSUS
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
1ST FLOOR, 165-166,
BLACKBAY RECLAMATION, H.T. PAREKH MARG,
CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA-400020.
ALSO AT:
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
AMBADEEP BUILDING 14, GROUND FLOOR,
KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
(Through: Ms. Saloni Dwary, Advocate)
... Opposite Party
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 12
CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Himanshu Shukla, proxy counsel for Mr. Ajay Singh,
counsel for the Complainant.
Ms. Saloni Dwary, counsel for the OP.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
a) Direct the Opposite party to pay the Claimed amount as per IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.26,74,656/- along with interest @ 11% p.a. from the date of filing the present:
complaint till its actual realization.
b) Direct the Opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/ towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members.
c) Direct the Opposite party to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) pass such any other order/s as this Hon'ble commission deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 06.07.2016, the Complainant purchased a motor vehicle, namely Toyota Fortuner 3DL 4×4 bearing temporary Registration No. HR 99 ZM Temp 6820, having chassis No. MBJ11JV51050451510161, for a total consideration of Rs. 28,37,674/- from an authorized dealer, Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., situated at 3 KM Stone, Ambala Road, Near New Bye Pass, Kaithal, Haryana. The said vehicle was temporarily registered for ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
the period from 06.07.2016 to 05.08.2016, and the Complainant had also applied for a special registration number. Thereafter, on 14.07.2016, the vehicle was duly insured with the Opposite Party Insurance Company under a Private Car Package Policy bearing No. 2311201443719500000 for the period from 30.06.2016 to 29.06.2017, upon payment of a premium amounting to Rs. 69,002/-.
3. It is the case of the Complainant that on 21.08.2016, the insured vehicle, which had been parked outside the residence of his friend, was allegedly stolen by unknown persons. Consequently, FIR No. 024467/2016 under Section 379 IPC came to be registered at the e-Police Station, M.V. Theft, Crime Branch, Delhi, against unidentified persons. The FIR records that the vehicle was properly parked and secured at the time of the incident. The Complainant duly intimated the Opposite Party regarding the theft on 22.08.2016 through the concerned insurance agent and furnished a copy of the FIR. However, despite repeated follow-ups, including communications through an official namely Sh. Vikas Kumar, no effective steps were taken by the Opposite Party to process the claim.
4. Subsequently, on 10.11.2016, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered within the prescribed period of one month from the date of purchase, allegedly constituting a violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 01.02.2017 seeking settlement of the insured claim; however, the Opposite Party neither acceded to the request nor furnished any reply. Being aggrieved by the said inaction and repudiation, the Complainant has approached this Commission by way of the present complaint.
5. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and filed the written statement whereby contending that the present complaint should be ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
dismissed for the non-joinder of the necessary party. The counsel for the Opposite Party also contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated due to the violation of section 39 of the motor vehicle act. The counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act stipulates that temporary registration is valid only for one month, however, the Complainant failed to get the Registration done within the stipulated time period, therefore, the claim of the Complainant is rightly repudiated. Pressing the aforesaid, the counsel for the opposite Party prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
6. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, Complainant and Opposite Party have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
7. The written Arguments on behalf of the Complainant are on record wherein the Complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the present complaint and also relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:
a) Revision Petition No. 449 of 2018 titled "The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Shyam Indus"
decided on 15.02.2018;
b) Revision Petition No. 67 of 2015 titled "Nidheesh Sharma Vs. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.";
c) Revision Petition No. 3794 of 20183 titled "The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Diya";
8. The written Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party are also on record wherein the Opposite Party has reiterated the facts mentioned in written ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
statement to the present complaint and also relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:
a) Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd., V. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., [(2010) 7 SCC 417]
b) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sushil Kumar Godara [(2021) 14 SCC 519].
c) Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., [(2014)] 9 SCC 324]
d) National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Vivek Tiwari [2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 149]
e) In Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., [2012 SCC OnLine NCDRC 80].
9. We have perused the material available on record.
10. The primary question for consideration before us is whether the present complaint is liable for dismissal on account of non-joinder of a necessary party.
11. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the present complaint is liable for dismissal as the Complainant has not arrayed HDFC Bank Ltd. as a party to the present complaint. The counsel further submitted that the insured vehicle was financed by the HDFC Bank Ltd. and therefore it is necessary party to the present complaint.
12. On perusal of the record, we find that the though the insured vehicle in question was financed by the HDFC Bank Ltd., however, it is a settled position that a "necessary party" is one in whose absence no effective and complete adjudication can be made. In the present case, the dispute pertains to the repudiation of the insurance claim by the Opposite Party Insurance ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Company under the policy issued in favour of the Complainant. The contractual relationship under the insurance policy exists between the insurer and the insured i.e., the Complainant, and the liability, if any, arises out of the terms and conditions of the said policy.
13. Therefore, merely because the vehicle was financed by HDFC Bank Ltd., the said financier does not become a necessary party to the adjudication of the present complaint. At best, the financier may be a proper party having a financial interest in the subject matter; however, its presence is not essential for deciding the validity of the repudiation of the insurance claim. Therefore, the contention raised by the Opposite Party is answered in negative.
14. The main question for consideration before us is whether the Opposite Party Insurance Company was deficient in providing its service by repudiating the claim of the Complainant on account of violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
15. For proper appreciation of the present complaint, the relevant section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is reproduced below:
"Section 39. Necessity for registration. - 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."
ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
16. A bare perusal of the aforesaid section shows that the mandate of law is confined to prohibiting the driving of a motor vehicle in any public place unless the same is duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
17. Further, we find that the provision casts an obligation upon the owner not to drive or permit the vehicle to be driven without registration; however, it does not impose an absolute bar on ownership or possession of an unregistered vehicle. In other words, the essence of Section 39 is the regulation of use of the vehicle in a public place and not the invalidation of the vehicle or the rights arising out of its ownership, including insurance coverage.
18. Therefore, mere non-registration of the vehicle within the stipulated period, in the absence of any evidence showing that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the said provision at the relevant time, cannot be construed as a fundamental breach so as to defeat a valid insurance claim, particularly in a case of theft where the question of "driving" of the vehicle by the owner does not arise.
19. Further, to strengthen our view, we deem it appropriate to refer to the Revision Petition No. 449 of 2018 titled "The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Shyam Indus" decided on 15.02.2018, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission while deciding the similar issue has held as under:
"10. Bare reading of section 39 suggests that driving of unregistered motor vehicle by any person in any public place or any other place is prohibited. The section casts an obligation on the owner of the motor vehicle not to permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or any other place. Violation of this provision is an offence as defined under section 192 of the Act. Case of the petitioner is that since the vehicle was unregistered, the respondent insured had violated section 39 of the Act which is an offence punishable under section 192 of the Act.
ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
11. From the FIR No.600 dated 2.11.2011 under Section 379 IPC registered at police station Civil Lines, Rohtak on the complaint of Sandeep More it is clear that on the said date Sandeep More had driven said unregistered vehicle to Maina Tourism Complex Rohtak and parked it in the parking of the said complex. It is also clear from the FIR that subject vehicle was stolen while it was parked. No doubt that Sandeep More violated Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 when he drove the vehicle upto the parking of Maina Tourism Complex and while driving he violated Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act which is offence punishable under Section 192 of the Act. However, from the contents of the FIR it is also clear that the vehicle was stolen while parked in the parking of the above tourism complex. Thus, the question arises whether the commission of offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act prior to the theft would justify repudiation of insurance claim?
12. Answer to the above question is in the negative. Admittedly, at the time of insurance subject vehicle was unregistered. Despite that the insurance company provided the insurance cover to the subject vehicle without insisting for its registration, temporarily or permanent, before accepting the proposal for insurance. Perusal of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act would show that even in case of a vehicle having temporary registration such a registration is valid only for a period not exceeding one month. Despite that the petitioner insurance company instead of providing the insurance cover for one month, issued the insurance policy for full one year and charged premium for an year without making it clear to the insured that in case the insured failed to get the vehicle registered within a month from the date of purchase, the insurance cover would stand withdrawn. If at all there was any intention on the part of the insurer that in the event of any single violation of ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Section 39 of the Act, the insurance cover to the subject vehicle would stand withdrawn, the insurance company was expected to make a clear stipulation in this regard in the insurance contract. This, however, is not the case. I have gone through the terms and conditions of the insurance contract as also the provisions of the Act. There is nothing in the contract or the Act to provide that in the event of any single violation of provision of Section 39 of the Act, the insured shall loose insurance cover if loss / damage to the vehicle is caused subsequent to the commission of said violation punishable under section 192 of the Act. Therefore, in my view, the insurance company cannot take advantage of offence under section 192 r/w section 39 of the Act committed by the insured by driving the vehicle from his residence to the hospital much earlier to the theft of the vehicle which was parked in the parking lot of the hospital. As such, the repudiation of the claim is not justified.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify the repudiation of the claim on the strength of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra). In my opinion, aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances for the reason that in the said case, the insurance claim was in respect of damage caused to the unregistered vehicle in an accident, meaning thereby that at the relevant time, the vehicle was being driven in violation of mandate of Section 39 of the Act. In the instant case, admittedly at the time of theft, subject vehicle was not being driven by anyone. Thus, at the time of theft, respondent was not violating Section 39 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid distinction of facts in the matter of (supra) and the instant case, the above-noted Narinder Singh judgment of Honble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of this case. Similar view was taken by this Commission vide order dated 28.4.2015 in ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
RP/3794/2013. SLP No.23878/2015 filed against said order was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.8.2015. The judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vikram (supra) and (supra) are of no avail to the Kanda Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Nautiyal petitioner as those judgments have been passed without noting that facts of case Narinder Singhs (supra) were different, as it was a case of accident of the subject car which was being driven without registration. Therefore, I am of the view that repudiation of insurance claim by the insurance company is unjustified and as such, order of the foras below cannot be faulted.
14. Looking from a different angle. The basis of repudiation is that the respondent has violated the mandate of Section 39 of the Act which is punishable under section 192 of the Act. On perusal of section 192 of the Act, we find that violation of Section 39 of the Act in the event of first offence is punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs.5000/- but shall not be less than Rs.2000/- and for the second or the subsequent offence, it is punishable with imprisonment upto one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- but not less than Rs.5000/-. It is not clear from the record whether the alleged offence of driving the vehicle from the house of the complainant to the hospital was the first offence or the subsequent offence. Thus, for the prosecution under section 192 r/w Section 39 of the Act, the complainant could be fined between Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/-. Denial of the insurance cover to the extent of Rs.6,31,750/- for violation of Section 39 r/w Section 1192 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the complainant would thus amount to imposing a punishment much higher than the punishment prescribed under section 192 of the Act. Therefore, also, repudiation of the claim is not justified."
ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
20. From the above settled law, it is clear that mere violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prohibits driving of an unregistered vehicle, does not ipso facto justify repudiation of an insurance claim, particularly in cases of theft where the vehicle was not being driven at the relevant time. It is also evident that unless there is a specific stipulation in the insurance policy providing for denial of claim on account of such violation, the insurer cannot avoid its liability after having accepted the premium and issued the policy.
21. In the present case also, we find that although the vehicle in question was not registered within the prescribed period, the theft occurred when the vehicle was parked and not being driven in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Further, the Opposite Party had issued the insurance policy for the full term after accepting the premium, without incorporating any condition that non-registration would result in forfeiture of the claim. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party on this ground is unjustified and cannot be sustained and in our considered opinion, we are of the view that the Opposite Party is deficient in service by repudiating the claim of the Complainant in the present case.
22. Keeping in view the facts of the present case as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 26,74,656/- (Insured Declared Value as per the Insurance Policy) along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% calculated from 10.11.2016 (date of repudiation letter) till 09.04.2026 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 09.06.2026;
ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 12 CC/408/2018 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
MR. PRINCE SOORMA VS. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
C. In case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before on or before 09.06.2026, the entire amount is to be paid with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from 10.11.2016 till the actual realization of the amount.
23. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of:
A. Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainant; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
24. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
25. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
26. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
09.04.2026 LR-AJ ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 12