Back
1999 Supreme(Kar) 433
Karnataka High Court
C.B.Virupaksha - Appellant
Versus
Shivakumar - Respondent
Decided On : 09-07-99
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is only entitled to raise specific defenses as mentioned under section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accidents - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 39
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, owner of the vehicle, challenged the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmaglur, claiming that the tribunal was not right in absolving the liability of the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company is not entitled to raise the defense of non-registration of the vehicle as it falls outside the scope of section 149(2) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the accident due to the non-registration of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defences open to the insurance company are only those mentioned under section 149(2) of the Act, and the non-registration of the vehicle is not one of the defences enumerated under this section.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to the claimant as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the owner of the vehicle challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Chickmaglur, in M. V. C. No. 72 of 1992.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by him in accident occurred on 12. 1. 1992. The tribunal on assessment of the evidence has held that the injuries suffered by the respondent No. 1 are on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the appellant. In respect of the injuries, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 38,400 with interest. Insofar as the liability is concerned the Tribunal has absolved the insurance company of its liability and has directed the appellant to satisfy the award. Therefore, the appellant has filed this appeal contending that the tribunal was not right in absolving the liability of the insurance company.
( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal has held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation on the ground that on the date of the accident the vehicle was not registered as required under section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Section 39 of the act reads as follows:"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. "no doubt under the above said provision, no person shall drive any motor vehicle in any public place unless the vehicle is registered. The facts in this case are
( 4 ) THE vehicle in question was temporarily registered under section 43 of the act and it was valid till 30. 11. 91. Thereafter, the vehicle has been permanently registered as required under section 39 of the Act, with effect from 24. 1. 92. The date of accident is 12. 1. 1992, on which date the vehicle in question did not have any registration certificate.
( 5 ) THE contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that since there is a prohibition to use the vehicle in any public place without a valid registration as required under section 39 of the act, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
( 6 ) IN reply to this submission learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the non-registration of the vehicle is not one of the defences contained under section 149 (2) of the Act and, therefore, the insurance company is not entitled to raise the defence in order to avoid its liability.
( 7 ) IN order to appreciate this submission it is useful to refer to section 149 (2) and (7) of the Act, which reads as follows"149 (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given, the insurer had notice through the court, or as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely: (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised
