State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sukhwinder Singh on 13 October, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 306 of 2014 Date of Institution : 15.09.2014 Date of Decision : 13/10/2014 United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Dealer Office, S.C.O. No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through Senior Divisional Manager. Now through Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, S.C.O. No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 V e r s u s 1. Sukhwinder Singh s/o Late Sh.Ram Lal, R/o House No.2600/1, Sector 38, Chandigarh. ....Respondent No.1/complainant 2. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, S.C.O. No.33-34-35, Sector 34, Chandigarh, through its Manager. 3. Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.194/195, Level- 1, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Signatory/Manager. .... Proforma Respondents/Opposite Party No.2 and 3 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Kamal Kant Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.2 Sh.
Devinder Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3 PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.08.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1), and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), as under:-
As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. OP No.1 is directed :-
i) To refund an amount of Rs.4,85,815/- (Insured Declared Value) along with interest @9% p.a. to the complainant from the date of filing of the claim, till its realization.
ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service.
iii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
However, it is made clear that since the complainant has failed to repay the loan to OP No.2, therefore, the amount shall be remitted directly in the account of OP No.2 by OP No.1. The excess payment, if any, to OP No.2, shall be refunded to the complainant.
This order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP No.1 shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.
2. However, the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 was dismissed, by the District Forum, with the directions contained therein.
3. The facts, in brief, are that, on 28.02.2013, the complainant purchased Tata Indigo CS Diesel LS version car and got the same insured from Opposite Party No.1, for the period from 28.02.2013 to 27.02.2014, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.4,85,815/-, on payment of premium of Rs.10,376/-.
4. On 04.04.2013, the complainant alongwith his friend Mr. Inderpal Singh, went for some work in Phase 1, Mohali. After finishing the work, they came to the house of Mr. Inderpal Singh. The complainant parked his car, in front of House No.167, Phase-1, Mohali. However, after sometime, the complainant found that the car, in question, was missing. The complainant reported the matter of theft of the car, in question, to the Police of Police Station, Mohali.
It was stated that when the Police of Police Station Mohali, could not trace the car, in question, it lodged FIR Annexure C-4 on 10.04.2013. It was further stated that intimation about theft was duly given to Opposite Party No.1. All the relevant documents, were supplied to the representative of Opposite Party No.1.
5. Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dated 19.11.2013, repudiated the claim of the complainant, on flimsy grounds. It was further stated that the repudiation of genuine claim of the complainant was illegal and arbitrary. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of Opposite Party No.1, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing Opposite Party No.1, to reimburse the claim amount of Rs.5,11,384/-; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment; interest @18% P.A., on the aforesaid amounts; and cost of litigation.
6. Opposite Party No.1, in its written reply pleaded that that since complicated questions of fact and law were involved, in the instant complaint, the District Forum had no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same, as the proceedings before it, are summary in nature. It was further pleaded that the District Forum had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was admitted that the vehicle, in question, was got insured from Opposite Party No.1, by the complainant, for the period from 28.02.2013 to 27.02.2014, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.4,85,815/-, on payment of premium of Rs.10,376/-. It was also admitted that the vehicle, in question, was stolen on the night intervening 04.04.2013/05.04.2013, when it was parked, in front of House No.167, Phase-1, Mohali. It was stated that, on receipt of information from the insured, Opposite Party No.1 asked the complainant, vide letter dated 09.04.2013, Annexure OP/R-2, to supply copy of the FIR. It was further stated that, it was only thereafter, that the complainant, lodged FIR No.82 on 10.04.2013, with the Police of Police Station, Phase 1, Mohali. It was further stated that the complainant lodged the FIR, after an un-explained delay of 5 days, which was in violation of the fundamental terms and conditions of the Policy.
It was further stated that, as such, time to trace the vehicle was lost and the vehicle picker got sufficient time, either to ply it to any safer place or dismantle the same, for selling it to a scrap dealer. It was further stated that, not only this, on receipt of intimation of theft, an Investigator Sh. S.S. Bedi, was deputed to investigate the matter, who submitted his report, on 15.06.2013. It was further stated that after processing the report, submitted by the said Investigator, it came to light that the car, in question, was purchased on 28.02.2013. The temporary registration of the said car was valid for one month i.e. till 27.03.2013. The complainant, however, did not get the vehicle registered, with the concerned Registering Authority, which was in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was further stated that, as such, on the date of theft of the vehicle, the complainant was not having any valid registration certificate, to use the same (vehicle). It was further stated that the claim of the complainant was legally and validly repudiated, by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle, in question, by taking loan, in the sum of Rs.4,07,000/-, from it, which was to be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalments, upto 20.02.2017. It was stated that loan agreement was executed between the parties, to this effect. It was further stated that after payment of Rs.7,500/-, the complainant defaulted, in making payment of instalments. It was further stated that, as per the statement of account, as on 02.03.2013, an amount of Rs.5,45,764/-, was still outstanding against the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, had the first right to recover the outstanding dues, alongwith upto-date interest and incidental charges. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
8. Opposite Party No.3, did not submit written reply and evidence.
9. In the replication/rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 and
2.
10. The complainant and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, led evidence, in support of their case.
11. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
12. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
13. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
14. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that there was a delay of five days, in intimating the theft of car, in question, to the Police Authorities, as a result whereof, it (Police) was deprived of tracing the same, which might have covered hundreds of kilometers by then, and sold to some person, or scrap dealers, by the persons\(s) who committed theft thereof. He further submitted that, as such, there was a breach of fundamental condition of the Insurance Policy, by the complainant. He further submitted that, not only this, since the temporary registration of the car, in question, which was got insured by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.1, expired on 27.03.2013, it was required of him, to get the same registered, from the Registering Authority concerned. He further submitted that admittedly, the car, in question, had not been got registered, by the complainant, from the Registering Authority concerned, on the date of theft of the same. He further submitted that, as such, there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submitted that the complainant was guilty of violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which took her case out of the protection of Policy. He further submitted that the claim of the complainant was, thus, legally and validly repudiated by Opposite Party No.1. He placed reliance on Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014, decided by the Hon`ble Apex Court, on 04.09.2014, Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) CPJ 559 (NC), and Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. B.A. Lokesh Kumar, III (2013) CPJ 528 (NC), decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in support of his contention that breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the insured was sufficient to repudiate his claim, legally and validly. He further submitted that the District Forum did not take into consideration, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, by the Apex Court, as also the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and thus, fell into a grave error, in accepting the complaint, in the manner, referred to above. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
15. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that the Police was immediately informed, with regard to the theft of car, in question, but, it recorded the FIR, on 10.04.2013. He further submitted that for the fault of the Police respondent No.1/complainant, could not be held liable. He further submitted that, no doubt, temporary registration of the car, in question, expired on 27.03.2013. He further submitted that, undoubtedly, the complainant was not having any valid registration certificate, in respect of the car, in question, on the date of theft of the same. He further submitted that the mere fact that the car, in question, was not registered, on the date of its theft, in itself, was not sufficient to repudiate the claim of the complainant, in toto. He further submitted that the principle of law, laid down, in Narinder Singh `s , Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra `s and Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. `s cases (supra), referred to above, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He also placed reliance on H DFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ila Gupta & Ors. I (2007) CPJ 274 (NC), and Aroma Paints Ltd. & Anr. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 635 (NC), in support of his contention. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
16. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the car, in question, was stolen on 04.04.2013, whereas, the FIR, copy whereof is Annexure OP/R-3, was got registered on 10.04.2013. It is evident, from Annexure OP/R-3, copy of the FIR, that, it was, for the first time, on 10.04.2013, that the complainant intimated the Police, with regard to the theft of car, in question. In the FIR aforesaid, it was recorded that the complainant had been tracing the vehicle, on his own, but when he could not trace or find any clue of the same, he was now getting the case registered on 10.04.2013. Thus, the averment made by the complainant, in the complaint, that he had immediately informed the Police, with regard to the theft of car, in question, but it did not record FIR, on the same date, is belied from the contents of the FIR, got registered by him. There was, therefore, unexplained delay of 5 days, in getting registered the FIR, by the complainant.
17. In these circumstances, we are required to see, as to whether, there was breach of any fundamental Condition of the Insurance Policy, and, if so, what were the consequences thereof. Annexure OP-R/1 is the Private Car Package Policy of the vehicle. Condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the said Policy, at page 31 of the District Forum file, reads as under:-
Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.
18. The plain reading of Condition No.1 of the Policy, extracted above, clearly goes to show, that notice was required to be given, in writing, to the Police, as also the Company, immediately upon theft or other criminal act, which may be the subject of a claim, and the occurrence of any accident, or loss or damage, in the event of any claim, and, thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. There was certainly a breach of the aforesaid fundamental Condition of the Insurance Policy Annexure OP-R/1. It is settled principle of law, that the Consumer Foras are required to construe the terms and conditions of the Policy, as it is, and nothing can be added to or subtracted therefrom. Similar principle of law, was laid down in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, reported as JT 2004 (8) SC 8.11= IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC).
19. Since there was violation of the fundamental Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy, referred to above, now, let us see, as to what were the consequences thereof. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC), a similar question, fell for decision, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In that case also, there was Condition No.1 in the Policy, somewhat similar and identical to the terms and conditions of the Policy, in the instant case. While accepting the appeal, holding the repudiation of claim, by the Insurance Company, as valid, and setting aside the order of the Fora below, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held as under;-
Word immediately has not been defined under the Act. Resort has to be made to the dictionary meaning assigned to it.
As per Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word immediately means at once.
As per Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word immediately is defined as under:
(1). The word immediately, although in strictness it excludes mean times, yet to make good the deeds and intents of parties it shall be construed such convenient time as is reasonable requisite for doing the thing.
As per Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, word immediately means: -
Immediately.
Without interval of time, without delay, straightway, or without any delay or lapse of time. When used in contract is usually construed to mean within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of the circumstances of the case, although strictly, it means, not deferred by any period of time. The words immediately and forthwith have generally the same meaning. They are stronger than the expression within a reasonable time and imply prompt, vigorous action without any delay.
According to Mitras Legal and Commercial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word immediately is defined as under: -
Immediately.
Immediately is to be construed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case. Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Ed. Vol. 23, para 1618, p. 1178.
The word immediately is stronger than the expression within a reasonable time, and imply prompt, vigorous action, without any delay. It means all convenient speed. The word immediately should not be construed so as to require doing something which is impossible.
As per Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word immediately means at once whereas Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word immediately in the context of contract has to be taken as reasonable requisite time for doing the thing. As per Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, word immediately means doing of a thing straightway or forthwith but when used in the context of contract, it is usually construed to mean within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case. More or less to the effect, is the same meaning assigned in Mitras Legal and Commercial Dictionary, Fifth Edition. Since, in the present case, there was a contract between the insured and the insurer and, the word immediately, under the circumstances, has to be construed within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case.
In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insures of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.
20. In the aforesaid case, there was a delay of 2 days, in lodging the FIR and 9 days in reporting the loss to the Insurance Company. Even, in those circumstances, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in clear-cut terms, held that since there was violation of Condition No.1 of the Policy, as the Police and the Insurer were deprived of the valuable right, to investigate, as to the commission of theft, and to trace the vehicle, the repudiation of claim, was legal and valid.
21. In Devendra Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors., III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, theft of the vehicle, was reported to the Police, after four days, and to the Insurance Company, after about a month. The claim of the complainant, was repudiated. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a complaint, before the District Forum, which was dismissed. First Appeal, which was filed, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by the appellant/ complainant, was also dismissed. Still feeling dissatisfied, he filed Revision Petition, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which was also dismissed, on the ground, that the claim was rightly repudiated.
22. In the instant case, as stated above, intimation with regard to the theft of car, was given after 5 days, to the Police, when the FIR was registered, on 10.04.2013. In these circumstances, the Police was deprived of tracing the car, which might have covered hundreds of kilometers by then, and sold to some person or some scrap dealer. Since there was a breach of the fundamental Condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the Policy, referred to above, Opposite Party No.1 could take such an objection, in the written statement. The Consumer Fora could take cognizance of such a ground, having been taken in the written statement, by Opposite Party No.1, for repudiating the claim of the insured. The District Forum was wrong, in holding to the contrary. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being incorrect, are reversed.
23. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Insurance Company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the complainant/ insured, in toto, in respect of the car, in question, merely, on the ground that it was being used, in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, meaning thereby that the complainant was not having a valid registration certificate, at the time of theft. Admittedly, in the instant case, the car, in question, was purchased on 28.02.2013. It was granted temporary registration certificate, for one month, which expired on 27.03.2013. The car was stolen on 04.04.2013. Admittedly, when the car, in question, was stolen, it was not having a valid registration certificate. In other words, it was being used, without a valid registration certificate, on the date of theft thereof. Sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are relevant, for the effective determination of the controversy, read as under:-
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 carriers 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.
43. Temporary registration-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary of temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark.
(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable.
Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.
(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner.
24. A bare perusal of Section 39, afore-extracted, shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the Registering Authority, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the Registering Authority for temporary registration certificate, and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration was granted by the Authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarifies that the period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the Registering Authority, only in a case, where a temporary registration was granted in respect of the chassis to which, body has not been attached and the same was detained in a workshop, beyond the said period of one month, for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances, beyond the control of the owner
25. In the instant case, as stated above, temporary registration certificate of the car, in question, expired on 27.03.2013. There is nothing, on the record, that immediately thereafter, the complainant applied for registration of the vehicle, with the Registering Authority. As stated above, till the date of theft of the car, in question, it had not been registered with the Registering Authority. The car, in question, was thus being used without any valid registration certificate, and had been taken to Mohali, where it was parked, from which place, it was stolen. Thus, the car was being used by the complainant, wholly and completely, in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A similar question fell for decision in Narinder Singh`s case (supra). The Hon`ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, laid down the principle of law, to the effect that, if the vehicle was being used without valid registration certificate, and damage to the same or loss thereof occurred, then the Insurance Company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured, in toto. In Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra `s case (supra), it was also held that use of the vehicle, in violation of law itself will take it beyond the protection of the Policy. In Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. `s case (supra), it was also held that if the loss of the vehicle occurs, when it was being used, in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurer will be justified in repudiating the claim of the insured. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, if fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since, the vehicle, in question, was being used by the complainant, in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the time the theft thereof was committed, the insurer was justified in legally and validly repudiating the claim of the complainant. There was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The findings of the District Forum, to the contrary, being incorrect, are reversed.
26. No doubt, in H DFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. `s and Aroma Paints Ltd. `s cases (supra), it was held that repudiation of the claim of the insured, merely on the ground, that the vehicle was not having a valid registration certificate, at the time of loss of the same, or accident thereof, was not justified. However, it may be stated here that, in view of the principle of law, laid down by the Hon`ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh`s case (supra), any principle of law, laid down to the contrary by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in H DFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. `s and Aroma Paints Ltd. `s cases (supra), shall not hold the field. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the complainant, from H DFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. `s and Aroma Paints Ltd. `s cases (supra), in support of his contention. The District Forum was wrong, in holding that claim of the complainant could not be validly repudiated on the ground that it was not having valid registration certificate, at the time of theft. The findings of the District Forum, in the regard, being incorrect, are reversed.
27. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
28. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.
29. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.
30. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
31. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
October 13, 2014 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg