Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 868
High Court of Karnataka
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Manager
Versus
Shiva Prasad & Another
M.F.A. NO. 4283 of 2008 (MV)
Decided on: 13-03-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Jaiprakash, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Service of notice.
Headnote:MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 173: [Aravind Kumar, J] Appeal by insurance company against judgment and award fastening liability on Insurance Company to satisfy the claim -Plea of the insurer that certificate of registration of the offending vehicle was expired, not renewed or revalidated on the date of the accident - Held, A composite reading of Sections 39, 41 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and by harmonious reading of these three provisions it would clearly indicate that if an application is not filed on time, it can be subsequently filed and the authorities are empowered to collect from the owner an amount not exceeding Rs.100/- which is prescribed under sub-Section (13) in lieu of any action that may be taken against owner under Section 177. As such non-renewal of certificate of Registration can be construed as an irregularity which can be cured by collection of amount depending upon the period of delay. Hence, such delay in filing an application for renewal will not amount to illegality. If the renewal were to subsequently take place under sub-Section (10) by collection of fine as contemplated under sub-Section (11) such renewal would relate back to the date of expiry as found in registration certificate.
The question which would be begging the issue is as to why the ownership of the vehicle in question was transferred to the name of ’Y’ if the registration of the vehicle was not in force, same has remained a mystery unraveled till date. As the insurer having not tendered any cogent evidence in this regard, the Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of the insurer that the registration certificate was not in force on the date of the accident.
1. Insurer is in appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the Judgment and award passed by MACT, Bangalore in MVC 2576/2005 dated 29.12.2007 contending interalia that Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the insurance company.
2. Heard Sri. Jai Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance Company. Service of Notice on R-1 & R-2 has been held sufficient vide order dated 08.03.2013 and 21.08.2012 respectively.
3. Contention of Sri. Jai Prakash, learned counsel appearing for insurer can be crystalised as under:
(i) Validity of Policy issued to the offending vehicle is co-extensive with that of registration certificate issued in respect of said vehicle and on account of registration certificate of the offending vehicle not having been renewed or revalidated by jurisdictional Regional Transport Authority the liability of the insurer had ceased on the midnight of the year inasmuch as under section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no person would be entitled to drive a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter IV of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;
(ii) By operation of law namely sub-section (7) of Section 41 certificate of registration issued by Regional Transport Authority would be valid for a period of 15 years and on completion of said period registration certificate issued in respect of such vehicle would cease to be in existence unless the registration certificate is renewed and in the instant case 15 years period had expired on 17.10.2001 and registration certificate of the offending vehicle having not been renewed appellant-Insurance company could not have been directed to indemnify the claim and as such it should be absolved of its liability by allowing the appeal and dismissing the claim petition filed against insurance company.
(iii) He would also elaborate his submission by contending that compensation awarded by Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant and as such compensation awarded by the tribunal be substantially reduced and compensation be awarded in consonance with the injuries sustained and consequential disability suffered by the claimant.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant, I am of the considered view that following points would arise for my consideration.
(a) Whether appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the claim on account of Registration Certificate issued to the offending vehicle not having been renewed after period of 15 years after its expiry?
(b) What Order?
BACKGROUND:
5. On account of a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.02.2005 at about 9.10 a.m. while the claimant (a minor aged about 7 years) was walking in front of school gate situated at Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore, the rider of a Kinetic Honda driving said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against claimant which resulted in injuries being sustained by him. For treatment he was shifted to Eshwar Hospital, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore and was treated at the said hospital. He was an impatient in said hospital for about 6 days. He sought for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- by filing a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before MACT, Bangalore. Respondent insurance company on service of notice appeared and filed its statement of objections by denying the averments made in claim petition. It was specifically contended by insurer at paragraph 7 that policy issued to the offending vehicle would cover third party risk and it will be in force till the validity of the registration of the vehicle in question existed and vehicle in question having been registered in the year 1986 and its validity having expired on 17.10.2001 and not being subsequently renewed though it was transferred to the name of first respondent in the year 1996, there was no valid registration certificate in existence issued by the jurisdictional Regional Transport Authority to the vehicle and as such insurer need not indemnify the claim
