247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.02.2025 Karambir Dhillon & Anr ... Appellant(s)

Versus Rajani & Anr ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Harender Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) on the ground that recovery rights had been given to the Insurance Company (respondent No.2 herein).

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the offending vehicle had a temporary registration number which was valid from 07.03.2016 to 08.04.2016 and that the insurance policy was taken on the basis of the chassis number and the engine number. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that on 06.05.2016 the permanent registration was applied for. For that, reliance has been placed on a receipt (Annexure P-5), which was not a part of the record, to contend that on

06.05.2016 a receipt was issued qua the amount deposited for the permanent registration of the vehicle.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has contended that the temporary registration was valid from 07.03.2016 to 08.04.2016. The accident took place on 03.05.2016 and as per the document appended with the present appeal, the amount for permanent registration of the vehicle was deposited only on 06.05.2016 i.e. three days after the accident. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara [2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 478]; Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors [2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 272] and Rashpal Chand & Anr. Vs. Sumit Garg & Ors. [FAO-2070-2013 decided on 01.12.2018]

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence and, hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the present case.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case, admittedly, the temporary registration number of the offending vehicle was valid from 07.03.2016 to 08.04.2016. The accident took place on 03.05.2016 and the application for registering the vehicle was given on 06.05.2016 i.e. three days after the accident. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Godara (supra) has held as under :

“13. In the present case, the temporary registration of the respondent’s vehicle had expired on 28-07-2011. Not only was the vehicle driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place other than the respondent’s premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. In these circumstances, the ratio of Narinder Singh (supra) applies, in the opinion of this court. That Narinder Singh (supra) was in the context of an accident, is immaterial. Despite this, the respondent plied his vehicle and took it to Jodhpur, where the theft took place. It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court’s opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the