Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Vikram Kanda —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1264 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 03/12/2013 in Appeal No. 259/2013 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
Decided on 1.9.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate With Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
It is mandatory that vehicle be registered as stipulated under Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Motor Vehicle Act, 1988—Section 39—Insurance—Theft of vehicle—Irrespective of fact whether vehicle is parked or plying, it is mandatory that vehicle be registered as stipulated under Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988—Subject vehicle was not registered for more than five months after expiry of period of provisional registration—This is a fundamental breach and Insurance Company has rightly dishonoured claim—Order of State Commission set aside and complaint dismissed.
       Held: A similar question fell for decision in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 324, Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014, decided on 04.09.2014 (filed against Revision Petition No.4951 of 2012), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the principle of law, to the effect that if the vehicle was being used without valid registering certificate, and damage to the same or loss thereof occurred, then, the insurance company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured, in ‘toto’.
        In Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., RP No.4043/2008, decided on 16.02.2012- II(2012) CPJ 189 (NC), this Commission (Circuit Bench, Bhopal), held that use of the vehicle, in violation of law itself will take it beyond the protection of the Policy.
       It is, thus, apparent that the vehicle was without any registration for the period 13.06.2008 to 26-27.12.2008, i.e., for more than a period of five months. Though, there is a specific pleading by the Complainant that the said vehicle was not used and was only parked at his residence as he was involved in some marital disputes, yet, the fact remains that no attempts were made by the Complainant in getting the registration extended. Irrespective of the fact, whether, the vehicle is parked or plying, it is mandatory that the vehicle be registered, as stipulated under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
       In view of the above, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the question of delay in informing the Insurance Company. It is an admitted fact that the subject vehicle was not registered for more than five months after the expiry of the period of provisional registration, which, for the afore-mentioned reasons, we are of the considered view, is a fundamental breach and the Insurance Company has rightly dishonoured the claim.
       In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside and consequently, the Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Paras 11 to 15)
       Result: Revision Petition allowed.

ORDER

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member—Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) is to the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’), in First Appeal No.259/2013, preferred by the Complainant. By the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan (in short, ‘the District Forum) and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.5,94,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e., 30.10.2010, till the date of realization, together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. Succinctly put, the facts material to the case are that the Complainant purchased a Bolero SLX Vehicle on 14.06.2008 for Rs.5,94,000/- and got it insured, covering the period from 19.06.2008 to 18.07.2009. The said vehicle was given a temporary registration No. HP 51-A Temp 7366 valid from 14.06.2008 to 13.07.2008. It is averred by the Complainant that on 27.12.2008, when the said vehicle was parked at his residence, it was stolen and immediately an FIR was lodged. On 20.03.2009, the police filed their final report before the JMIC, Gurgaon, stating that the vehicle was ‘untraceable’. On 21.01.2010, the Complainant sent a registered letter to the insurance company stating that he could not get the registration certificate in time as he was pre-occupied with matrimonial disputes. It is pleaded by the Complainant that despite submitting all the documents with the Insurance Company, the claim was not settled. Hence the Complainant approached the District Forum and sought a direction to the Opposite Party to pay the insured amount of Rs.5,94,000/- with interest, compensation and costs.

3. The Opposite Party filed their Written Version pleading that the temporary registration of the vehicle had expired on 13.07.2008, which was much prior to 27.12.2008, the date of the alleged theft. It was stated that after the expiry of the temporary registration, the driver as well as the owner of the vehicle were prohibited from the use of plying of the vehicle at any public place. By using the vehicle on the date of occurrence of the theft, i.e., on the night intervening between 26-27.12.2008, the owner had committed a serious breach of Sections 39 & 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the Rules, made thereunder. It was further pleaded that it was mandatory for the insured to report the incident of theft, immediately i.e., within 48 hours of its occurrence, but that they had received the information only on 05.01.2009, vide letter dated 30.12.2008, which was beyond 48 hours and, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon them.

4. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint, observing that there was no deficiency in service on behalf of the insurance company in not settling the Complainant’s claim.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission, which set aside the order of the District Forum, holding that the condition in the policy was to the effect that the vehicle will not be used at any public place, without registration; Law also does not mandate the registration of a vehicle, but it only prohibits use of the vehicle at any public place, unless it is registered, as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as the Complainant’s vehicle was parked in front of his residence and was not being used at any public place, it did not constitute breach of any condition.

6. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the insurance company has preferred this Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Company”), submitted that, though, the claim had not been formally repudiated till date, it was not settled only on account of the Complainant committing a breach of Section 39 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTIt is mandatory that vehicle be registered as stipulated under Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
It is mandatory that vehicle be registered as stipulated under Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.