Sanjiv Kumar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition impugns the order dated 29.12.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P (for short "State Commission") whereby the appeal was allowed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (for short "District Forum") was set-aside.

We heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record.

In the interest of justice, to give fair opportunity to the Complainant, and to settle the matter on merit, the delay of 37 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a motorcycle from one M/s Asha Auto Agencies and got it insured from the OP - Insurance Co. The insurance period was from 21.04.2003 to 20.04.2004. The insured-Complainant had given the insured vehicle to his brother-in-law Mr. Vinod Kumar for personal use. On 19.05.2003, Mr. Vinod Kumar stopped the motorcycle at the road side near village Dulehra to attend to a call of nature. On his return, he found the motorcycle missing (stolen). This was informed to the police and on the next date an FIR was lodged at PS Shahpur. The police failed to apprehend the miscreants or recover the vehicle. The Complainant submitted his claim to the OP - Insurance Co., which was repudiated inter alia on the ground that the motorcycle was not registered with the Regional Transport Office (RTO). Being aggrieved by the repudiation, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

The OP - Insurance Co. filed its written version and inter alia took the defense that the motorcycle was not registered with the Regional Road Transport Office (RTO) within the period stipulated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.

The District Forum vide order dated 24.09.2005 partly allowed the complaint.

Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP - Insurance Co. preferred first appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, after hearing both the parties and appraising the evidence, allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the District Forum.

Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the instant revision petition against said order dated 29.12.2015 of the State Commission.

One ground for repudiation was that the vehicle in question was not registered with the RTO. The provisions of section 39 & 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are quoted below:

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.

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.]

It is clear from a bare reading of the above - quoted sections that a vehicle cannot ply in a public place without registration. The insured vehicle in the present case plied in a public place without any registration. This is a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as of the terms of the policy.

The State commission has also made its observations regarding the non-registration of the vehicle and the fundamental breach of the terms of the policy:

"- - In the instant matter, neither the owner of the vehicle applied for in temporary registration nor the registering authority had given any temporary registration mark or registration number to him. Thus, during all these period the vehicle was allowed to ply on the road is gross violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which was punishable offence under Section 192 of the Act. Apart from this, there was a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy contract and, therefore, repudiation on this ground cannot be treated as inappropriate. 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 is also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. In the instant matter, the owner of the vehicle certainly committed a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, repudiation on this ground was totally justified. The Forum below failed to take into consideration the express provisions of law provided in the Act 59 of 1988. It also ignored the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Appellate Courts from time to time.- -".

(extracts from the State Commission's impugned Order)

In our view, in the facts of the present case, this one ground in itself was sufficient for repudiation. We find no need to examine the other grounds.

We find that the State Commission has aptly weighed the evidence and passed a well reasoned order, which calls for no interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Act 1986.

Sequel to the foregoing discussion, the case of the Complainant fails.

The revision petition is dismissed.