BHAGWAT vs Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 28.03.2014, passed by the Maharasthra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short ''the State Commission'') vide which FA No. 596/2011, "Bhagwat versus Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd." against order dated 21.09.2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Latur in consumer complaint no. 365/2008 was dismissed. The District Forum had dismissed the said consumer complaint vide their order dated 21.09.2011.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the present petitioner/complainant Bhagwat filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, saying that he purchased Bolero XL Body Jeep on 18.12.2006 for a consideration of Rs.5,02,000/ - by taking a loan of Rs.3,67,000/ - from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company. The vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company on the same day for a period of one year, i.e., from 18.12.2006 to 17.12.2007 vide policy No. 230603/31/6/01/00009676. Temporary registration under section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act was obtained for the said vehicle which was valid till 18.01.2007. However, no application was given to the Regional Transport Officer for registration of the said vehicle as per the requirements of section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant stated that he could not apply for permanent registration as he was in a disturbed mental condition due to the death of his father. The said vehicle met with an accident on 09.05.07 and suffered damage. Information about the accident was given to the Insurance Company, which appointed different surveyors to make spot survey and also to assess damage to the vehicle. However, despite obtaining reports from the surveyors and the necessary documents, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the petitioner/complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not registered with the transport authorities. A consumer complaint was then filed before the District Forum which dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner / complainant had used the vehicle without registration and thus, committed breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum was also dismissed vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted during arguments that as per the view taken by this Commission in the case, "The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. versus Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors." [RP No. 52/2012 decided on 27.02.2012], the claim could not be repudiated, only on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered. A similar view has been taken by this Commission in their order dated 14.02.2012 passed in "The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swami Devi Dayal" [RP No. 497/2012 decided on 14.02.2012]. The learned counsel argued that the vehicle had been temporarily registered with the Transport Authority. She, however, admitted that the application for making permanent registration was not made by the petitioner because he was in a disturbed state of mind due to the death of his father. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that the petitioner / complainant had made a breach of fundamental condition laid down under section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which it was mandatory to have the vehicle registered. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to an order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8463/2014 decided on 04.09.14, "Narinder Singh versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.".

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant never applied before the Regional Transport Officer for getting permanent registration for the vehicle. It is true that the Insurance Policy, valid for one year has been issued by the respondent Company, but the complainant is not entitled to claim compensation for damages, when the vehicle was being driven on the date of the accident without any valid registration and in contravention of section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner/complainant has not been able to furnish satisfactory explanation for not making an application for permanent registration for such a long time. The contention of the petitioner/complainant that he was in a disturbed state of mind due to the death of his father cannot be held to be a valid ground for not making application for permanent registration and thus, carrying out breach of legal provisions. Moreover, the issue has been discussed threadbare in the order passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in "Narinder Singh versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd." (supra), in which case, the facts are almost similar. The Hon''ble Apex Court has held as follows: - "14. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground" of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract."

IT has been made clear in the above order passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court that for failure to meet the statutory requirements regarding the registration of vehicle, the complainant was not entitled to get the claim even on ''Non -Standard basis.''

IN view of the discussion above, there is no ground for any interference in the well -reasoned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order as well as the order passed by the District Forum upheld with no order as to costs.