Heard learned counsel for both sides on V.C.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a three wheeler Auto Rickshaw from OP No.1 on 13.7.2012 and on the same day, he purchased the insurance policy for the tractor from OP No.2 for the period from 14.7.2012 to 13.7.2012. After purchase and possession of the vehicle, it was taken by the complainant. The complainant alleged inter alia that on 17.7.2012 while the vehicle was going to RTO Office for registration, it met accident. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the OPs. The vehicle was also repaired. The complainant alleged that OP No.1 knowingly did not give the temporary registration number and OP No.2 also remained silent to the request of the complainant by repudiating claim on the ground that policy condition has been violated but not supplied registration number. So, alleging about deficiency of service on both the parties, the complaint was filed.
4. OP No.1 filed written version stating that the vehicle has been sold by him to the complainant on 13.7.2012. OP No.2 also insured the vehicle by issuing the cover note on the same day basing on the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle. Since the complainant insisted to take out the vehicle and bring it on the next working day for registration, OP No.1 handed over the vehicle to the complainant. He also accepting the plea of the complainant submitted that while the vehicle was going on 17.7.2012 to the RTO Office, it met accident. When the accident took place, the matter was reported to OP No.2 who is to pay the compensation under the insurance policy. On the other hand, OP No.1 averred that he has no fault and as such was not liable to pay compensation.
5. OP No.2 filed written version separately stating that the vehicle has been insured undoubtedly under Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and thereafter, the registration number of tractor was not issued by OP No.1 although it was required for having temporary/permanent registration number. However, he admitted to have repudiated the claim of the complainant filed for accident vehicle met while allegedly going to RTO Office for registration. The complainant has not taken step to register the vehicle. According to their written version, in absence of registration number, temporary or permanent, the policy condition has been violated. So, they repudiated the claim. In the circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.
6. Learned District Forum after hearing both sides passed the following impugned order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
As per the above finding it is ordered that the complaint petition is allowed on contest. The OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for his negligence while rendering service to the petitioner and as the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.80,131/- towards the cost of repair of the Auto and here the OP No.2 is directed to pay this amount of Rs.80,131/- to the petitioner by settling the claim within a period of one month of receipt of this order failing which the opp.parties shall be liable to pay interest over the awarded amount @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its payment.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not appreciating the fact. Learned District Forum has also erred in law in not going through the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. According to him, it is cardinal principle of insurance law that the policy condition if violated the policy holder is not entitled to get the compensation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has failed to apply judicial mind to the fact that Sections - 39 and 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly show that the vehicle cannot ply on the road without any temporary or permanent registration number. It is also required under the policy condition that if the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules are violated, the insurance company will not be liable for any repudiation of the claim. On the other hand, he submitted that the learned District Forum has not at all gone through the provisions of law properly although it quoted the relevant provisions in the order itself. He further submitted that in the instance case, since the vehicle was plied without any registration number violating the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount. Therefore, they rightly repudiated the claim. He also submitted that OP No.1 has taken the plea that the vehicle has been taken away by the complainant although it was not allowed. However, he submitted that the impugned order of the learned District Forum is illegal and improper for which it should be set aside. In support of his submission, he referred the decision of Narinder Singh vrs. New India Assurance Company Ltd and others (2014) 9 SCC 324.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that OP No.1 has not filed any appeal but has contested before the learned District Forum on the ground taken in the written version that the vehicle was sold to the complainant and OP No.2 has responsibility to pay compensation by insuring the vehicle which met accident during validity of policy. According to him, learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the written version of OP No.1 to the effect that complainant has taken away the vehicle without any document on the ground that he would immediately register the vehicle with the RTO. When the complainant has taken responsibility for plying vehicle without any document, OP No.1 has got any least responsibility. However, the learned District Forum has not appreciated such fact and saddled OP No.1 to pay compensation and made OP No.2 liable for the simple reason that the vehicle has already met accident while it was going to RTO office for registration which is also required within seven days of purchase. However, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the vehicle has already been insured and during currency of the insurance policy, it met accident. He also submitted that OP No.1 is at fault for not giving the temporary registration number. He further submitted that while complainant was going with the vehicle to the RTO office on 17.7.2012 on Monday because of intervention of second Saturday and Sunday, he has no fault. Therefore, he supports the impugned order.
11. Considered the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
12. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 on 13.7.2012. It is also admitted fact that the vehicle was insured with OP No.2 on the same day. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was taken away by the complainant without any sort of registration number with certificate either temporary or permanent issued to the complainant. It is also not in dispute that on 17.7.2012 the vehicle met accident.
13. Complainant has admittedly got no registration certificate at the time of accident. Rule - 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 specifically enshrines that no vehicle is allowed to ply without registration number and immediately after purchase, the vehicle should have been insured and there is no dispute over it. During the currency of policy, the accident took place. Now the only question arises why the temporary or permanent registration number was not with the vehicle. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that OP No.1 has not parted with the temporary registration number and the vehicle was going to RTO office for registration just on the next working day as OP No.1 only thrown the burden on the complainant stating that the vehicle was taken away by the complainant to bring it for registration. Admittedly, the vehicle could not be registered due to holidays falling on next day of purchase and the complainant stated that the vehicle was taken on 17.7.2012 i.e. working day for registration. Of course, learned counsel for OP No.2 objected the said fact but he has no proof submitted to show that 13th and 14th were not holidays and the vehicle was not going for registration. Complainant has taken the plea that he has taken the vehicle on the instruction of OP No.1. When the vehicle has already been sold by OP No.1, it has got duty to register the vehicle temporary and should not have left the vehicle without document of temporary registration. However, the plea of OP NO.1 is not convincing that the complainant has taken away the vehicle in spite of his protest.
14. OP No.2 has also taken the plea that he has no fault to repudiate the claim when the vehicle was playing without registration number. In this regard, the law on this score is to be discussed. Sections - 39 & 43 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is as follows:-
“xxx xxx xxx
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.
Section – 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.
Rule-47 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is as follows:-
Rule - 47. Application for registration of motor vehicle -(1) An application for registration of a motor vehicle shall be made in Form 20 to the registering authority within a period of seven days from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle.”
15. The aforesaid provisions of M.V.Act and Rules are clear to show that the registration of vehicle is necessary within seven days of purchase. Of course, the temporary registration certificate should be issued in this particular case within seven days. At the same time, the insurance policy of the vehicle was valid at the time of accident. When the law permit seven days time for registration and the complainant has proved that the vehicle was going for registration on the next working day on 17.7.2012, in this circumstances, the provisions of policy condition that the vehicle was running without any such registration certificate falls flat. When the vehicle has been insured with chassis number and engine number and the law permits seven days time, the plea of OP NO.2 that the settlement of claim is not possible due to want of registration number is a vulnerable one and indefensible.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Narinder Singh vrs. New India Assurance Company Ltd and others (Supra).
17. With due respect to the deciosn, it is found that the fact and circumstances of that case is different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Rule-47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is not discussed in the judgment. Thus, the decision is not applicable to this case.
18. In view of above discussion, this Commission do not find any error in the impugned order as such the impugned order is affirmed. The appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.
