Insurance liability requires valid vehicle registration; mere application is insufficient under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Both the appeals arise from the Judgement dated 30th January 2016, passed by the learned District Judge III Cum P.O., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat at Bokaro in Vahan Durghatna Dawa Wad Sankhya (M.A.C.C. No.) 92 of 2013, whereby the claim filed by the claimants has been allowed directing the appellant insurance company (insurer of Motor Cycle) to pay Rs.9,64,000/-. The insurance company is denying its liability and the claimants have filed the connected appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. On 11.04.2022, the appellant-Insurance Company had submitted that there has been fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The first breach was that the driver of the offending motorcycle did not have the driving licence. He referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Singh & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, and submitted that adverse inference should have been drawn against the owner and right of recovery should have been granted to the Insurance Company by the Tribunal. The second breach as alleged was that the offending vehicle was without a registration number plate and it was submitted that the vehicle without displaying the registration number is a fundamental breach and it was asserted that the vehicle was registered after the date of accident.

3. This Court exercised jurisdiction under Order XLI, Rule 25 C.P.C and framed three additional issues and directed the Tribunal to record additional evidence and return the file with findings. The additional issues so framed were as follows: -

(i) Whether there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

(ii) Whether offending motorcycle bearing engine number and chassis number were registered on the date of accident.

(iii) Whether the rider of the motorcycle possessed a valid driving license to drive two wheelers.

The learned Tribunal decided all the three issues against the Insurance company.

Arguments of the Insurance Company

4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that they are only aggrieved with the adjudication of additional issue no.2 and there is no further contest with other issues. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured but the bone of contention is as to whether the vehicle was duly registered on the date of accident.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance company has referred to Rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to submit that for the purposes of registration of vehicle, insurance policy is a requirement, and therefore, insurance coverage is granted prior to registration of the vehicle. The learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:

a) (2014) 9 SCC 324 (Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.) paragraph 11 to 14.

b) The order passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal No.157 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., Deoghar Vs. Abha Gupta and others) dated 06.10.2015 paragraph 6.

c) Judgment passed by Madras High Court reported in 2012 0 Supreme (Madras) 3656 (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Latha & Others), paragraph 4.

6. With respect to the other appeal, in which the Insurance Company is a respondent, he has submitted that the there is an error in grant of compensation to the extent that future prospect of 40% has not been given and the conventional amount has not been duly computed to the extent of 70,000/-. The age of the deceased was 36 years.

Argument of the claimants.

7. It is submitted that –

a. future prospect has been left out;

b. multiplier has been wrongly applied as 16 instead of 15;

c. loss of consortium was to be calculated @ Rs.40,000/- per dependent, and there were four dependents;

d. interest has been paid only till the date of the award but the same ought to be paid till the date of payment.

8. The learned counsel has furnished a copy of the calculation in his short synopsis of argument. The learned counsel has relied upon the