Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ambala Belting House & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No.1995 of 2016
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Motor Vehicle Act - [Sections 39, 192, 198] - The court discussed the requirement of permanent registration of a vehicle and its impact on the liability of the insurance company in case of theft. The court relied on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Act and previous judgments to conclude that failure to obtain permanent registration after the expiry of temporary registration would absolve the insurance company from liability in case of theft.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat awarding compensation to the respondent for the theft of a vehicle that was insured by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had not applied for permanent registration of the vehicle, and the insurance company would not be liable for the theft claim as per the Motor Vehicle Act and relevant case law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company was liable for the theft claim despite the vehicle not being permanently registered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Motor Vehicle Act and previous judgments to establish that failure to obtain permanent registration after the expiry of temporary registration would absolve the insurance company from liability in case of theft.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order awarding compensation to the respondent was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral) - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Ambala/respondent No.2 being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2. Respondent No.1 had purchased a vehicle on 08.01.2011 for personal necessity and got the same insured from the petitioner on the same day. As per certificate of insurance-cum-policy schedule, insurance was valid from 09.01.2011, 4.00 P.M. to midnight of 08.01.2012. The cover note was issued by the petitioner showing payment of requisitepremium against the insured value of Rs.5,97,550/-. Temporary certificate of registration was issued. The vehicle was required to be permanently registered on the due date after completion of all the necessary formalities.
3. The vehicle in question was never permanently registered and the same was stolen in the intervening night of 5/6th May 2011. Respondent No.2 accepted the claim of respondent No.1 thereby awarding an amount of Rs.5,97,550/-in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner with cost(s) of Rs.5,000/- towards unnecessary harassment and compensation.
4. Notice of motion was issued on 01.02.2016 by passing the following order:-
"Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has purchased the vehicle on 08.01.2011 and got it insured with the petitioner on the same day. The temporary number of the vehicle had survived upto 07.02.2011, whereas the vehicle was stolen on 05.05.2011. It is submitted that neither respondent No. 1 applied in time for the purpose of permanent registration of the vehicle nor there is any such evidence on record. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & ors., 2014(4) CPJ 11, in which it has been held that if the vehicleis not registered after the expiry of temporary number, then the Insurance Company would not be liable in case of any accident or theft.
Notice of motion to respondent No.1. for 08.03.2016.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed."
5. Thereafter, Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and sought time to address arguments on merits on 13.02.2017. Thereafter the case was adjourned on number of occasions. Interim order remained in operation throughout.
6. On 29.03.2022, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and following order was passed by this Court:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 had purchased the vehicle in question on 08.01.2011 and got the same insured with the petitioner on the same day. The temporary number of the vehicle was valid upto 07.02.2011 and thereafter, it was stolen on 05.05.2011. Respondent No. 1 never applied for getting the permanent registration number, nor was any such evidence led before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Notice of motion was issued on 01.02.2016 on the basis of reliance made by learned counsel for the petitioner to Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, 2014(4)CPJ 11. in which, it has been held that if the vehicle is not registered after the expiry of temporary number, then the insurance company is not liable in case of theft of vehicle. Today learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon para No. 11 of Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2021 titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara decided on 30.09.2021, wherein the same view has been reiterated.
Since there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1, therefore, in the interest of justice, adjourned to 06.05.2022.
No further adjournment shall be granted. Office of Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for respondent No. 1 be informed about enlisting of the case."
7. As per office report, office of Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate has been duly informed through email. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1.
8. Faced with the situation, this Court is left with no option, but to hear the arguments on merits.
9. Learned counsel
Failure to obtain permanent registration of a vehicle after the expiry of temporary registration would absolve the insurance company from liability in case of theft, as per the Motor Vehicle Act and ....
(1) When an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of conditions contained in contract of insurance.(2) Vehicle driven/used without a v....
The interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Act in relation to the validity of insurance claims for vehicles with temporary Registration Certificates.
The Permanent Lok Adalat must assess the merits of insurance claims and cannot substitute its reasoning for that of the insurance company, especially in cases of procedural lapses.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
