AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain,
The complainant / petitioner purchased a Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire car and got the same insured with the respondent for the period from 28.10.2013 to 27.10.2014. The delivery of the vehicle had been taken by him on 28.10.2013. The said car having met with an accident on 14.3.2014, a claim in terms of the insurance policy was lodged with the respondent. The claim was repudiated primarily on the grounds stated in a letter dated 13.9.2014 sent by the insurer to the petitioner. The said letter, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
"There is 131 days of delay in intimation after the loss, as per policy condition No.1"Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require."
At the material time of loss the Registration certificate of the vehicle was not valid. Please note that as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act -
"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".
In addition to the above following documents also not submitted by your good self - attested copy of FIR along with translation in English if FIR is in regional language - Post Mortem report."
Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the grounds on which the claim had been repudiated.
The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 19.9.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal, thereby dismissing the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
It is an admitted position that the vehicle in question was delivered to the petitioner / complainant on 28.10.2013 and at that time a temporary registration valid for thirty days had been obtained. The said temporary registration expired on 27.11.2013. The petitioner applied for grant of a permanent registration on 14.3.2014, after a gap of about 3 ½ months. The registration was granted on 19.3.2014, but the vehicle met with an accident in the meanwhile. Thus, on the date of the accident, the vehicle was being driven without registration, though, the registration had been applied.
Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the extent it is relevant reads 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 the 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"
Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
"47. Application for registration of motor vehicles - (1) An application for registration of a motor vehicle shall be made in Form 20 to the registering authority within a period of seven days from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, excluding the period of journey and shall be accompanied by -
.........
(2)In respect of vehicles temporarily registered, application under sub-rule (1) shall be made before the temporary registration expires."
It would thus be seen that a person purchasing a vehicle is required to apply for registration of the vehicle within seven days of taking its delivery in respect of the vehicles, which are temporarily registered. The application for regular registration has to be submitted before the temporary registration expires. The temporary registration in this case having expired on 27.11.2013 and the complainant / petitioner having applied for regular registration on 14.3.2014, it is evident that he did not apply for the regular registration within the prescribed period, there being a delay of almost 3 ½ months in applying for the regular registration. As a result, the vehicle at the time it met with an accident was being driven without a registration in contravention of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which also entails punishment under Section 192 of the said Act.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant is that the petitioner / complainant having applied for the regular registration on the say day on which the accident took place and the said application having been submitted before the vehicle had met with an accident the insurer could not have repudiated the claim on the aforesaid ground. In support of his contention he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 324 and points out that in Narinder Singh (supra), the vehicle met with an accident on 2.2.2006 and by that date the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not even applied for the registration. In other words his submission is that once a person applies for a regular registration, he cannot be said to be in breach of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. I however find no merit in the contention. As a matter of fact, the appellant in Narinder Singh (supra) had not applied for registration even by the date on which the vehicle met with an accident and this factual position was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment. But, nowhere did the Hon'ble Supreme Court say in the aforesaid Judgment that had the appellant applied for registration by the date on which the accident took place, he would have been entitled to the benefit of the insurance policy even if the registration had not been granted by that date. As noted earlier, in the present case, there was a time lag of 3 ½ months between the expiry of the temporary registration and the date on which the accident took place. In fact, the report lodged with the police on 14.3.2014, which is available on page 10 of the additional documents filed by the petitioner himself would show that the accident had happened before 8.40 am on that date, the report having been registered at that time. Obviously, the application for regular registration must have been made thereafter, since the offices are not open even by 8.40 am. Thus, the registration was applied for, after the accident.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.