IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is not entitled to repudiate claim merely on ground that vehicle had not been registered.

Vinay Kumar, Member—This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of the fora below. There is a delay of 36 days in filing the revision petition which, considering the explanation of the appellant, was condoned. The matter was accordingly taken up for consideration on merits. The matter arises out of theft of a Mahindra Bolero vehicle on 21.3.2009. At the time of the theft the vehicle was insured with the revision petitioner IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. The claim under the policy was repudiated by the Insurance Co, on the ground that on the day of the theft the vehicle was not registered with the transport authorities. This amounted to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy by the Insurance Co.

2. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the Insurance Co. had insured the vehicle for a sum of Rs.5,62,400/-, after charging a premium of Rs.20242.77. The insurance was effective from the date of purchase and was in operation when the vehicle was stolen on 21.3.2009.

3. The OP/ IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. contested the claim. It was however, admitted that the OP had provided the insurance cover for the vehicle. But, the Insurance Co., asserted that the repudiation of the claim was as per the conditions of the policy. The insurance policy operated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the OP, the vehicle remained unregistered and the Complainant continued to use it without proper registration.

4. The District Forum took into account the fact that the vehicle was covered under a temporary registration from 7.9.2008 to 7.10.2008. There was no evidence to show whether the vehicle had received permanent registration, after the above period. The District Forum noted that as per records, the claim was repudiated by the OP on the ground that of non-registration with the RTO, which was a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, it held that there was nothing in insurance policy to discharge the insurer from its liability under the policy on the ground of non-registration. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the claim, directing the OP/revision petitioner to pay the amount of insurance i.e. Rs.562400/- together with compensation of Rs.7,600/-.

5. Considering the appeal against the above order, the State Commission noted that complete documents were not filed before the District Forum, by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Co. could therefore not be permitted to say that some terms of the insurance policy had been violated by the Complainant/insured. The Commission observed that a perusal of the documents on record showed that there was nothing to support the claim that the Insurance Co. would stand exonerated from its liability, in the event of violation of any provision of law by the insured. The claim of the appellant/Insurance Co. was rejected by the State Commission with the following observations:-

“From the record, it appears that the vehicle was got registered in the Office of the RTO, Raipur, vide document Annexure-A4. This document shows that under the provisions of Section 25 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the vehicle in question was got registered under a temporary registration and registration NO.C.G.04 5651/TR was allotted to the vehicle. In the certificate, it has also been mentioned that the certificate would be valid from 08.09.2008 to 17.10.2008 and necessary charges Rs.130/- was paid for the purpose of getting this temporary registration No. on 08.10.2008 and then again on 13.11.2008. These dates have been mentioned against the word “deposit”. Probably this endorsement shows that some amount was deposited for getting temporary registration continued from 14.10.2008 to 13.11.2008. Though no specific endorsement was made by the Registering Authority in this regard, but from this entry of deposit, it appears that the concerning RTO, permitted the