The lack of permanent vehicle registration constitutes a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions, justifying claim repudiation.

1. This revision petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ˜Act') assails order dated 7.10.2016 in First Appeal No. 2110 of 2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (in short, the ˜State Commission') setting aside the order dated 15.6.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena (in short, the ˜District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 94 of 2009.

2. The brief conspectus of facts is that the petitioner purchased a Scorpio car with financing from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd., Morena and obtained insurance from 20.02.2006 to 19.2.2007 from the respondent. A temporary registration was obtained from the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Gwalior. On 12.2.2007 the vehicle was stolen in Dholpur. As the FIR was not registered by the Police, petitioner obtained an order from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholpur to register an FIR. An order of theft was registered by the Court. The claim of the petitioner for loss was rejected on 28.1.2008 as "No Claim" on the ground that requisite papers were not submitted. The District Forum allowed the complaint upholding deficiency in service which was set aside in appeal by the State Commission on the ground that the vehicle was not registered as required under S.39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy. The petitioner has impugned this order by way of this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the revision petitioner and the respondent and perused the material on record. The moot issue is whether a vehicle with an expired temporary registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) can be considered to be coveredunder an insurance policy and whether the repudiation of the claim under an insurance policy in such a case amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vide IA No. 9260 of 2021 has filed an application seeking amendment in the memo of parties along on the ground that petitioner “ Kishan Singh Jadaun has since expired on 31.8.2021. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the legal heirs of the petitioner may kindly be allowed to bring on record. The same is allowed and the amended memo of parties filed on 23.11.2021 vide dy No. 23511 is taken on record.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the State Commission has erred in upholding the appeal since permanent registration although a necessity under the MV Act is not an essential requirement under the insurance policy. Therefore, not having a permanent registration of a vehicle is not a fundamental breach of the policy of insurance to result in its repudiation. It is argued that insurance of a vehicle is a contract between the insured and the insurer as per the contract of insurance and in the instant case there is no pre - condition of insurance that the vehicle should have a permanent registration with the RTO. The only condition with regard to theft in the Policy is that the car should be owned by the insured and that intimation of theft should be made to the Insurance Company. Since both these conditions were met and there wasno breach of conditions, the repudiation was not in order. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , I (2004) ACC 1 (SC):I (2004) SLT 345:109 (2004) DLT 304 (SC):(2004) 3 SCC 297, wherein it was held that:

(vi): Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed t