JUDGMENT Delivered by, Sri Surendra Kumar, Senior Member: This is an appeal against the order dated 01.09.2003 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2.42-,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand) along with 12% interest & cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000/(Rupees One Thousand) 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.06.1998, the complainant purchased a Maruti Car 800 from Rohan Motors. Dehradun. Its temporary registration UP07 -T-4779 and it was fully insured with the appellant. On 02.08.1998, the car was stolen from Nirmala Cantt, Hardwar On 05.08.1998, the son of the complainant, Sh. Rohit lodged the F.I.R., which was registered as F.I.R. No. 533/98. After great efforts, the police could not find the car and the police submitted its final report No. 154/98 on 22.08.1998 in the Court, which the Court accepted on 02.09.1999. 3. The complainant requested for the payment of his amount both in writing as well as orally to the insurance company. On 02.08.2001, the complainant submitted all the papers to the appellant and requested for the payment of his claim. On 14.08.2001, the complainant again wrote a letter to the appellant and requested for the payment. The insurance company replied this letter and alleged that the claim is repudiated on the ground of "No Claim". Therefore the complaint was filed. 4. The insurance company filed objections and alleged that the complainant has no right to file the complaint and his complaint is not maintainable & is also time barred because the loss occurred on 02. 08.1998. However, it admitted the insurance of the car. It further alleged that stealing of Maruti Car No.UP07-T-4779 with engine no. 1694505 and chassis no. 1236490 of which the son of the complainant lodged the F.I.R. on 05.08.1998 is not admitted. It alleged that they received the information on 08.10.1998, after which it appointed an investigator for necessary investigation and the investigator in his reported dated 28.06.1999 alleged that after checking the records of the R.T.O., Dehradun it was revealed that the car of the complainant was temporarily registered for the period from 11.06.1998 to 10.07.1998 and therefore on 02.08.1998, i.e. on the date of alleged theft, its registration was not valid and effective. It further alleged that the repudiation of the claim was informed to the complainant vide their letter dated 15.09.2000 and further by letter dated 02.08.2001. 5. After taking the evidence of the parties, the Learned Forum allowed the complaint. Against which order the present appeal has been filed. 6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Both the parties filed their affidavits and other relevant documents in support of their allegations. The insurance company raised the plea that the complaint is time barred. The complainant filed the complaint on 02.04.2002. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on 15.09.2000. The limitation shall run from 15.09.2000, therefore the complaint is within the prescribed limit of two years. Therefore the complaint is not barred by time. 8. Now we have to see whether the insurance company repudiated the claim under the rules or not and whether repudiation of the claim is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant or not? The appellant admitted the insurance of the car. It alleged that the repudiation was done on the basis of final report submitted by the police in which it has not written that the vehicle has been stolen. It further alleged that there is no clear cut evidence of the theft of the car. It further challenged the temporary registration of the car because in this connection the complainant has produced the certification of Rohan Motors, seller dated 10.06.1998. in which name of purchaser, Pawan Kumar has been written. Although the alleged car was mortgaged with Oriental Bank of Commerce but it has been released in favour of the complainant and the complainant also insured the car on 10.06.1998. Therefore the complainant is the owner of the alleged car and at the time of incident, non-registration of the car does not effect his rights. 9. As far as theft is concerned, the complainant has filed the F.I.R. and final report and also the copy of the C.J.M.'s order in which it accepted the final report. In the F.I.R. , it has been mentioned that on the date of incident, i.e. on 02.08.1998, the complainant after parking his car' near the house of the driver Sh. Babbal, came back to his home and on the next day his car was not there. Thereafter he along with his driver Sh. Babbal searched the. In the F.I.R. , it has been mentioned that on the date of incident, i.e. on 02.08.1998, the complainant after parking his car' near the house of the driver Sh. Babbal, came back to his home and on the next day his car was not there. Thereafter he along with his driver Sh. Babbal searched the. car in Meerut, Muzafiarnagar, Saharanpur etc. but it was not found In this connection, the police lodged the report under Section 406 IPC and searched the car under this section. After the investigation, it was found that no mistrust 'could be proved against Sh. Babbal. This final report was accepted by C.J.M., Haridwar. During the investigation the car was not found and it has not been found and it has not been found till date. In this connection nothing has' been said by the parties. Therefore the car has certainly been stolen. 10. The Learned Counsel for the complainant referred the ruling reported in 1 (1994) CPJ 196 (NC) , The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rohit Kumar Gupta & Ors., in which it has been held that if the vehicle has been stolen by its driver to whom it was given', it is still a theft and for if the insurance company is liable. As regards the dispute of allegation This Commission has decided Appeal No. 379/2002, Smt. Richa Gupta Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide order dated 16.01.2004, in which the car of the complainant was insured. It 'met with an accident and it was held that car is nothing else except the collection of its components. Every component is collected and then it becomes a car. If the engine itself has been changed that was a material fact and this is why it is written in the proposal form of the policy. Had only car number to be insured without any emphasis on the engine and chassis number, the column of chassis number & engine number should have been redundant, it is the specific identification of the car, and it is by this that the vehicle is insured. 11. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the insurance company that since the vehicle was not registered in the R.T.O. Office, therefore the claim is not maintainable. We cannot appreciate this argument. What was insured was the car and not the registration number. 11. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the insurance company that since the vehicle was not registered in the R.T.O. Office, therefore the claim is not maintainable. We cannot appreciate this argument. What was insured was the car and not the registration number. It is not disc puted that anybody else except the complainant was the owner. The complainant was admittedly the owner of the car. His car has been insured. What was registered was vehicle and therefore, registration number or no number was no ground for the repudiation of the claim because it is no. where in the policy that the vehicle should be necessarily registered and if it would have been so, the insurance company should not have insured the vehicle unless registration number would had been seen by it. If it knowingly registered the vehicle, it has to face the consequences as well. 12. Now it is established fact that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen and the repudiation of claim• by the insurance company is definitely a deficiency in service on its part. The Learned Forum was perfectly justified in allowing the complaint. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.