Naveen Verma vs RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, "the State Commission") dated 9th October, 2012 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Shimla and dismissed the complaint.

BRIEFLY stated, facts relevant for the disposal of revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant being owner of Tata LPT 407 Truck got it insured with the respondent/opposite party. Insurance policy was valid for the period w.e.f. 15.1.2007 to 14.1.2008. On 2nd July, 2007 the truck while on its way from Parwanu to Shogi met with an accident resulting in damage. The accident was brought to the knowledge of the opposite party. The respondent/opposite party deputed one Vinod Bhan, who visited the spot of accident, inspected the vehicle and advised the complainant to shift the vehicle to the workshop for repairs. The complainant shifted the vehicle to the workshop for repair where it was again inspected and the loss was assessed by another Surveyor deputed by the opposite party Company. Despite that the OP Company failed to settle the claim. The complainant, thus served the OP Company with a legal notice dated 27th September, 2007. The OP Company, however, vide letter dated 27th September, 2007 repudiated the claim for the reason that at the time of accident the subject vehicle was being driver without route permit, valid fitness certificate and proper registration. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner raised a consumer dispute in District Forum, Shimla.

RESPONDENT /opposite party in its written statement took the plea that the insurance claim of the petitioner was rightly repudiated for the reason that the vehicle was being run without a valid route permit, that the complainant had done additions and alterations in the body of the vehicle for which fitness certificate was required but no fitness certificate was produced by the complainant and thirdly that it was being plied without a valid registration number. District Forum, Shimla on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the insurance claim of the petitioner on non -standard basis and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,83,000/ - alongwtih 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint besides, litigation cost of Rs.3,000/ - was also awarded.

BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, respondent/opposite party preferred an appeal. The State Commission, Himachal Pradesh vide impugned order took the view that repudiation of claim was justified because at the time of accident subject vehicle was being plied without a valid registration which amounted to violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the Act), which is an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Act. The State Commission rejected the plea of the petitioner that even if there was violation of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to settlement of his insurance claim on non -standard basis.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is based on incorrect appreciation of the facts. Expanding on the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the copy of form 20 i.e. application for registration of the subject vehicle as also the receipt dated 22.6.2007 pertaining to the deposit of requisite fee for registration and submitted that from said documents, it is clear that the petitioner had already applied for the regular registration of the vehicle prior to the date of accident and as such he cannot be faulted for plying the subject vehicle pending the registration of the vehicle. It is further contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner has committed violation of Section 39 of the Act, there was no justification for repudiation of the claim for the reason that the petitioner was provided only with a cover not and terms and conditions of the insurance contract were not supplied to him. Thirdly, it is contended that otherwise also in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amlendu Sahu vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 2 RCR(Civ) 635 the claim of the petitioner ought to have been settled on non -standard basis.

LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.

WE are not convinced with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner for the following reasons: On perusal of photocopy of the registration certificate pertaining to the subject vehicle, it transpires that the insured vehicle was registered on 11.07.2007. Admittedly, the accident resulting in damage to the subject vehicle occurred on 02.07.2007 while it was being driven from Parwanu to Shogi. Section 39 of the Act provides that no person shall driver any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit to drive a motor vehicle at a public place or any other place unless the vehicle is registered. Thus, it is clear that on 02.07.2007 at the time of accident, the subject vehicle was being driven at a public place in violation of Section 39 of the Act. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narinder Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Limited & Others, 2014 9 SCC 324 had an occasion to consider the effect of violation of Section 39 of the Act on the insurance contract. In the said judgment, Hon''ble Supreme Court took the view that violation of Section 39 of the Act is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy contract which disentitles the insured from getting insurance claim. Relevant observations of Hon''ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under: "10. For better appreciation, Section 39 and Section 43 which are relevant are quoted herein below: - "39. Necessity for registration. No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

"43. Temporary registration. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark."

(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable: Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.

(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire -purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner."

A bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarified that the period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the registering authority only in a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chassis to which body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.

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."

THE State Commission has passed the impugned order relying upon the ration of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, impugned order cannot be faulted. Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.