Failure to comply with registration requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act constitutes a fundamental breach of insurance policy terms.

1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Bharat Construction and Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 15.11.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (in short ˜the State Commission') passed in Complaint No. 08/2010.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.3.2007, complainant M/s. Bharat Construction purchased a package policy of insurance from opposite party National Insurance Company Ltd. in respect of newly purchased construction equipment vehicle (Dumper) from Tata Motors Ltd. Jamshedpur. On 28.5.2007 while working at the work site near Bayal Distt. Kullu, the insured vehicle met with an accident and went downhill deeply which resulted in total loss of the vehicle. On 30.5.2007, proper claim was lodged with opposite party. FIR was lodged with police. Opposite party arranged spot survey. After the machine was retrieved, the Insurance Company appointed the final surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs. 24,98,000. However, no payment was made by the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 22.2.2010 on the ground that in spite of several reminders, the complainant did not deposit the copy of the RC, route permit and fitness certificate. It was further mentioned that the temporary registration had expired on 28.4.2007 and the accident took place on 28.5.2007. Thus, the vehicle was without registration on the date of accident. The complainant then filed consumer complaint No. 08 of 2010 before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground mentioned in the repudiation letter as well as on the additional ground that the driver was not having requisite driving licence to drive the vehicle. His driving licence had also expired before the date of accident.

3. The State Commission vide its order dated 15.11.2010 partly allowed the complaint and ordered that the opposite party / Insurance Company shall settle the insurance claim for Rs. 16,02,920 along with interest @ 9% p.a. since 1.12.2007.

4. Aggrieved with the order dated 15.11.2010 of the State Commission, the opposite party / Insurance Company as well as the complainant both have preferred appeals bearing Nos. 26 of 2011 and 423 of 2010 respectively.

5. Learned Counsel for the complainant / appellant did not appear for two consecutive dates to argue the matter. Hence, on third date when the learned Counsel for the complainant did not appear again, the learned Counsel for the opposite party was heard. It is to be noted that on all the three dates learned Counsel for the complainant was represented by different proxy Counsel and the proxy Counsel appearing on the third date of hearing did not have the authority letter to argue the matter nor he was ready with the matter.

6. The learned Counsel for the opposite party argued that the vehicle in question was a dumper and it is supposed to be a transport vehicle, however, the State Commission has not treated this as transport vehicle and has stated that the complainant does not require the route permit. Moreover, the temporary registration number given to the complainant was valid only for 30 days and the same expired on 28.4.2007. It is not the case of the complainant that the complainant applied for permanent registration number or for any extension of temporary registration number. Thus, the vehicle was without any registration on the date of accident which happened on 28.5.2007. As per S.39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , no vehicle can be taken on road without registration number from the Tran