Point of Law : Section 39 mandates that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless vehicle is registered in accordance with statute.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 award of the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi, dated 15.7.2004, which upheld the decision of the first respondent Insurance Company that rejected the claim preferred by the petitioner for the insured amount following the theft of the vehicle.

2. The petitioner purchased a Maruti Zen L.X. Car, availing finance from M/s.Kotak Mahindra. on 8.3.2001, which the first respondent insured. On 4.5.2001, the vehicle was stolen from the custody of the petitioner. On a complaint by the petitioner, a crime was registered. The police filed a report that the investigation did not reveal any information, and it can be re-opened in future if the police get any information. The petitioner approached the Insurance Company with a claim which was repudiated, stating that the temporary registration of the vehicle expired on 13.3.2001 and the theft occurred on 4.5.2001, after the expiry of the temporary registration. The insurance company contended that the insured had not taken any steps to register the vehicle permanently, and since at the time of the theft the vehicle had no registration, though the policy was valid at the time of the theft, the claim is not admissible due to the violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The said order of the insurance company was challenged before the Insurance Ombudsman, who affirmed the decision of the Insurance Company and rejected Ext.P2 claim petition by Ext P3 award that is challenged in this writ petition.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the insurance company contending that the Car was purchased on 8.3.2001 and was temporarily registered. On 9.03.2001, the said vehicle was insured with the first respondent under a comprehensive policy, but they had only issued a cover note. Though the period of insurance stated therein was for the period from 9.3.2001 to 8.3.2002, the validity of the cover note is only for 15 days as the same is only a temporary document. The vehicle was stolen on 4.5.2001, pursuant to which the petitioner registered a claim with the first respondent. But the first respondent had repudiated the claim by letter dated 14.06.2002 on the ground that the vehicle's temporary registration expired on 13.3.2001 and there was no vehicle registration at the time of theft. It is their contention that as far as the motor vehicle is concerned, a registered vehicle alone can be insured. To get a registration of the vehicle, a policy certificate should be produced before the Registering Authority, and only after registration will the policy commence. Section 2(4), Section 39, and Section 192 of the Act are pressed into service to substantiate the repudiation.

4. Heard Sri. K.S. Babu and Smt. N. Sudha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned senior counsel Sri. Mathew Jacob, instructed by Sri. Jacob Mathew, for the first respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was valid insurance coverage at the time of the theft; therefore, the first respondent's repudiation is illegal. It is also the argument that there has been no violation of the provisions of the Act as the vehicle was not used on a public road. The delay in getting the permanent registration was due to the delay in issuing Form No.20 by the financier for production before the registering authority. At any rate, the reason given by the insurance company for repudiating the claim based on the alleged violations of the provisions of the Act is clearly wrong. The insurance policy covered the risk of theft also. The entire insurance premium was collected, and the vehicle was stolen during the validity of the insurance policy hence, the insurance company is liable to compensate the petitioner.

6. Learned senior counsel for the insurance company reiterated the contentions taken in the statement filed and submitted that the cover note had only validity of 15 days, and since the temporary registration expired on 15.3.2001, and the theft occurred on 4.5.