New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Gurvinder Pal Singh

V.K. Jain, J

Late Shri Jagtar Singh, father of the complainant purchased a vehicle and got the same insured with the petitioner company for the period from 03.12.2014 to 02.12.2015. On 09.05.2015, when Late Shri Jagtar Singh was returning from Moga in the above referred vehicle, he met with an accident with a truck and died on that spot. A claim was submitted by the complainant for reimbursement in respect of the damage to the vehicle. The accident, according to the complainant, had resulted in total loss of the vehicle. The claim having not been paid, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the temporary registration of the vehicle had expired on 28.12.2013, much before the vehicle met with an accident.

The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.

Notice of the Revision Petitions has been served upon the respondent on 26.08.2019, but no one is present for him despite service. I have therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The State Commission, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner company, took a view that the onus was upon the insurer to prove that the vehicle was not registered at that time. I however, find myself unable to accept the contention. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

If the vehicle was got regularly registered on expiry of its temporary registration on 28.12.2013, this would be a fact exclusively in the knowledge of the father of the complainant, since he claims to have purchased the vehicle in December 2014. The complainant did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the regular registration of the vehicle on or before the date on which it met with an accident. I fail to appreciate what difficulty the complainant could possibly have in proving the registration of the vehicle since he was required only to summon the record from the concerned RTO to prove that the vehicle was registered in the name of his father on the date it met with an accident. Alternatively, he could have obtained a certificate to this effect from the RTO. The best evidence of course would have been the Registration Certificate itself which would have shown the date of its registration as well as the validity of the said registration. None of the aforesaid courses of action were adopted by the complainant. As far as the insurer is concerned, they had appointed an investigator, who made an enquiry in this regard and reported that the vehicle was not registered at the time it met with an accident. Therefore, the State Commission in my opinion, was not justified in shifting the onus to the petitioner company and allowing the complaint without proof of the vehicle being registered at the time it met with an accident.

In Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved rejection of the claim in respect of a vehicle which had not been registered after temporary registration had expired. The temporary registration in that case had expired on 11.01.2006 whereas the vehicle had met with an accident on 02.02.2006. Rejecting the contention that even when a vehicle is used without registration, it does not amount to violation of any statutory requirement and the insured is entitled to claim benefit under the insurance policy. The Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:

We have perused the order passed by the three Forums. The only issue for consideration is, as to whether the National Commission is correct in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation for damages in respect of the vehicle when admittedly the vehicle was being driven on the date of accident without any valid registration as contemplated under the provisions of Section 39 and Section 43 of Motor Vehicles Act. For better appreciation, Section 39 and Section 43 which are relevant are quoted herein below:-

"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.

"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 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."

A bare perusal of Section 39 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 and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarified 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 is granted in respect of chassis to which 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 unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.

Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The Consumer Complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.