1.       The petitioners being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, Punjab dated 14^th October, 2016 in first appeal No.714/2013 have preferred this revision petition.  

2.       Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent Chandan Malhotra filed the consumer complaint against the petitioners/opposite parties on the allegations that he purchased Chevrolet Optra Magnum vehicle on 9^th July, 2011 for Rs.8,15,325/-. The car was insured with the petitioner/opposite party No.2 with IDV Rs.8,21,327/-. The insurance cover was valid for the period 8^th July, 2011 to 7^th July, 2012. The complainant further alleged that on the night intervening 1^st & 2^nd December, 2012 at around 12.50 am while the complainant was going in the said car to see his friend at Kitchlu Nagar at Ludhiana he was mugged by three persons with muffled faces who took away the car on gun point besides two mobile sets and cash Rs.6,000/-. The complainant lodged FIR No.63 dated 4.12.2011 under Section 382/34 IPC at police station Haibowal, Ludhiana. The intimation regarding theft of car was immediately given to the opposite party insurance company and the insurance claim was registered with the opposite party on 5^th December, 2012. The opposite party insurance company, however, repudiated the claim. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/complainant filed consumer complaint in the District Forum, Ludhiana.

3.       The opposite parties filed a joint written statement contesting the allegations in the complaint. It was pleaded by the petitioners/opposite parties that the claim was rightly repudiated because the respondent/complainant failed to give immediate written intimation of loss of vehicle in violation of specific condition of the insurance contract. It was pleaded that the repudiation was justified because at the time of theft the complainant was using unregistered vehicle at a public place in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4.       Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence concluded that although it was a case of delayed intimation to the insurance company but it did not amount to breach of any fundamental condition of insurance contract. As regards the plea of use of unregistered vehicle in violation of Section 39 of the Act, the District Forum took the view that plying of unregistered vehicle at a public place in violation of Section 39 of the Act had no nexus with the theft nor it amounted to fundamental breach of the insurance contract. The District Forum, thus, partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis at the rate of 75% of the claim amount. The District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/- for unnecessary harassment to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- against the litigation charges.

5.       Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, both the complainant as well as opposite party approached the State Commission in appeal No.714/2013 and 823/2013. The State Commission on re-appreciation of the evidence dismissed both the cross appeals.  Being aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner has preferred the revision petition. 

6.       Learned counsel for the petitioner / opposite party has assailed the order of the Fora below on the ground that State Commission has failed to appreciate that at the time of alleged mugging, the insured vehicle was unregistered and it was being driven in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  which is an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  Therefore, repudiation of insurance claim was justified.   Learned counsel for the petitioner / opposite party in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others (2014) 9 SCC 324.

7.       The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narinder Singh ( supra) was to whether National Commission was correct in law in holding that the appellant of that case was not entitled to claim compensation for the damage in respect of the vehicle when the vehicle admittedly was being driven on the date of accident without any valid registration as contemplated under section 39 and Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles act.  In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court after analyzing the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act has observed as under:

“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.”

11. 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.

12. 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.”

8.       On bare reading of the above, it is clear that as per the ratio of the judgment, using of a vehicle on a public road without any registration is not only violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract.

9.       In the instant case also, it is admitted case of the complainant that he was mugged and the subject vehicle was taken away by the miscreants while he was going in the subject car to his friend’s house. Thus in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, repudiation of the insurance claim by the petitioner / insurance company was justified.

10.     Learned counsel for the respondent / complainant has contended that judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Narinder Singh ( supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case because Narinder Singh’s case related to the damage caused to the insured vehicle due to accident whereas in this case, the complainant was mugged and said vehicle was snatched by the miscreants.

11.     The above contention of learned counsel for the respondent is misconceived and based upon misreading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narinder Singh’s case ( supra).  On a bare reading of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Narinder Singh’s case, it is clear that Supreme Court has held that user of an unregistered motor vehicle on a public place amounts to fundamental breach of the insurance contract and is also an offence punishable under section 39 read with section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  In the instant case also, as per the admission of the complainant, the subject vehicle was taken away by the miscreants by mugging the complainant while he was travelling in the unregistered insured vehicle. This fact has been totally ignored by the Fora below.  The orders of the Fora below being contrary to the law laid down in the case of Narinder Singh’s case cannot be sustained.

12.     In view of the reasons stated above, I allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint.