SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint seeking realization of Insurance amount, compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is the registered owner of the Hyundai Santro car bearing Reg.No.KL-2/R-9548, The vehicle had a valid Insurance Policy from 21.3.2006 to 20.3.2007. On 15.6.06 at about 3 p.m. the car met with an accident near Kadappakada in which it hit against motor vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-2/C-1313. The car at the time of accidentwas driven by the authorized driver. Due to the accident the car sustained damages. The incident was reported to the opp.parties and the traffic policy who registered Crime No.298/2006. The vehicle was taken for repairs to the Hilton Motors, P.T.P. Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram The complainant incurred an expenditure ofRs.37,936/- for repairs and a sum of Rs. 3900/- for towing the car to the authorized workshop. The complainant put forth his claim to the opp.parties along with the original bill, but the claim was repudiated on 22.11.2006 on the ground that fitness certificate is not valid. The fitness certificate is not a a condition precedent in granting compensation for the damages sustained to a vehicle having a valid comprehensive insurance coverage. The car was being driven at the time of accident by an authorized driver The repudiation of the claim is illegal and hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the complainant was the RC owner of Hyundai Santro Car bearing Reg.No.KL-2/R 9548. The said vehicle was a taxi car used for hire. It is true that the vehicle was insured with the opp.parties and insurance was valid for the period from 21.3.2006 to 20.3.2007. The fitness certificate of the above vehicle expired on 12.4.2006. The complainant did not make the vehicle roadworthy and obtain a valid fitness certificate knowing that the vehicle was having no Fitness the complainant put to use the vehicle in contravention of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and violating the terms and conditions of the policy of the Insurance. The vehicle met with an accident on15.6.2006 is admitted a couple who were traveling in a scooter and the car hit each the causing damages to both the vehicle and injuries to a couple who were traveling in the scooter. The traffic police, Kollam registered crime No.298/2006 against the driver of the complainant. The claim for payment of repair bills spares etc. by the complainant was repudiated for valid reasons. The repair bills are also huge arbitrary and excess . There is no efficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the repudiation of the claim valid? 2. Whether there is deficiency in service of the part of the opp.parties 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P9 are marked. For the opp.party Dw.1 is marked. Points: As a matter of fact the policy as well as the accident are admitted. Also not disputed that the vehicle at the time of accident did not have valid certificate of Fitness. It has come in evidence that the complainant’s vehicle was a commercial vehicle . The opp.parties have repudiated the claim preferred by the complainant on the ground that the vehicle had no fitness certificate at the time of accident and therefore there is violation of policy condition. The contention of the complainant is that Fitness certificate is mandatory for the purpose of registration and if the registration is valid the owner of the vehicle is at liberty to drive that vehicle in any public place. It is the further case that no condition is stipulated in Ext.P1 series or Ext. D1 that for getting damages as per policy there must be valid fitness certificate. According to the opp.parties the vehicle had no certificate of fitness on the date of accident ie on 15.6.2006 and that the fitness expired on 12.4.2006 and since the complainant put to use the vehicle without making the same roadworthy there is violation of policy condition. The learned counsel for the opp.party would argue that the use of the vehicle which is a transport vehicle without fitness certificate will entitle the insurer to disown liability under the policy relying on the decision of the High Court of Kerala reported in 2009 [2] KLT 707. In the above decision the Hon’ble High Court has held that use of the vehicle without fitness certificate or permit will entitle the insurer to disown the liability under the policy. In conditionNo.5 of Ext. D1 it is clearly stated that insured vehicle shall be maintained in efficient condition Section 56 [1] of the Motor Ve9icle Act 1980 reads as follows “ subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60: a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-section [2] to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules .made thereunder”. From the wording of the section it is obvious that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose or sec. 39 unless it carries a certificate of fitness 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 chsapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carriees a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manager.” It is obvious that without a valid certifiat6e of fitness the vehicle should not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Sec. 39 which means without a certificate of Fitness a transport vehicle is deemed to be an unregistered one. National Commission has observed Non Possession of fitness certificate of vehicle on date of accident was in violation or Sec. 56 of Motor vehicles Act and constitute breach of conditions of policy [I [2006] CPJ 146. ] From the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala referred to above and the above decisions of the National Commission it is clear that non possession of certificate of fitness on the date of accident will constitute breach of condition of policy. When there is breach of policy condi9tion the opp.parties have every right to repudiate the claim. We hold that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is proper and calls for no interference. Points found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009. : I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. S. Vijayakumar List of documents for the complainant P1. – Policy certificate P2. – Two bills P3. – Way bill P4. – Certificate of Registration P5. – FIR P6. – Mahazar P7. – Scene Mahazar P8. - AMV>I report P9. – Final report List of witness for the opp.party: NIL List of documents for the opp.party D1. –Policy condition | 
