VISHWA DEV SINGH vs RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

This order shall decide the above mentioned revision petitions, which are filed against the same impugned order rendered by the State Commission. Both the parties have called into question the above said order.

The main question which swirls around these two revision petitions is, "whether, the registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of the law as per Section 31 of the M.V. Act. If the vehicle does not have valid registration number on the date of theft, whether, the use of the vehicle is in violation of law and condition of insurance policy?".

The facts of these cases are as follows. Vishwa Dev Singh, the complainant, purchased a Bolero D.I. Jeep on 25.01.2008 for a sum of Rs.5,20,460/- with the financial assistance provided by the Canara Bank, Sultanpur. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, issued by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP, the said vehicle was having temporary registration number and due to serious illness of the complainant, he could not get the permanent registration of the vehicle. During the night falling between 25 th - 26 th March, 2008, the said vehicle was stolen. The OP repudiated the claim on the ground that there was violation of Section 39 of M.V.Act, on the part of the complainant.

The District Forum directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.5,20,462/- to the complainant, with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the complaint, till the payment was made. Award of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation charges were also granted.

It appears that the State Commission placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, (2008) 11 SCC 259, Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 536, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS. Narayan Prasad Appapaprasad Pathak, II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC), HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ila Gupta & Ors., I (2007) CPJ 274 (NC), B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 28 (SC) and granted 75% of the insurance amount mentioned by the State commission.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. Complainant has supported the order passed by the District Forum and prayed that the same should be restored, but the OP has called into question the orders passed by both the fora below, as legally untenable. The insurance company sent a proxy counsel, firstly, he stated that he was not ready, but after watching our view, as against the counsel for the complainant, he agreed to argue the case. Nowadays, it has become very difficult to procure the presence of main counsel.

We are afraid that the above said five authorities are not applicable to these cases. The dispute in these cases is altogether different. It is also surprising to note that the State Commission has cited two other authorities as well and declined to follow those, one by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. ltd. & Ors., 2014 (4) T.A.C. 1 (SC) which applies to this case to a hair, in which it was held as under :- "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".

and the other authority reported is Bharti Axa General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. B.A. Lokesh Kumar, III (2013) CPJ 528 (NC) wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s authority was followed, which also neatly dovetails with the facts of this case.

We are of the considered view that both the fora below have committed an egregious error in accepting the above said authorities, which are unparalleled with the facts of this case.

It is also mentioned that the complainant could not get the permanent number of the above said vehicle, immediately. It is stated, on merits, that he was sick from 17.02.2008 to 04.04.2008, but he did not bolster his plea with any evidence, what to talk of solid and unflappable evidence. The counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the vehicle was lying in house of the complainant. It was not driven on the road. There is no such proof on the record. Such like story, made out of whole cloth carries exiguous value.

Consequently, we accept the revision petition (RP No.2721/2015), set aside the orders passed by the fora below and dismiss the complaint. RP No.695/2016 stands dismissed, both on delay (137 days) as well as on merits.