O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioners is as follows:

The petitioner insured his vehicle having registration No. KL - 05-T-239, Hundai Santro Car, in the office of the opposite party with vide policy No. 760500/31/05/01722 . The insurance policy of vehicle is valid from 25..4..2005 to 24..4..2006. On 12..5..2005 the insured vehicle met with an accident and notice of accident was given in writing to the opposite party. The petitioner prefered a claim to the opposite party. The opposite party by letter dtd: 22..8..2005repudiated the claim of the petitioner on reason that “claim repudiated for violation of chapter 4 of the M.V Act”. The petitioner states that there was violation of the policy condition. So, repudiation of the claim of the petitioner is not legal and is a clear deficiency of service. So, the petitioner prays for direction of the Forum to the opposite party to pay the insured amount of Rs. 26431/- with 12% interest from 18..5..2005 till date of realisation. The

-2-

petitioner also claim Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to the opposite party the reason for repudiation is true and correct. They contented that the petitioner has no right for using the vehicle in a public place without proper registration . According to the opposite party the petitioner has not registered the vehicle before the concerned authority at the time of accident. As per provisions of chapter IV of the Motor vehicles Act , the petitioner is not entitled to drive the vehicle in a public place without registration. So, the petitioner violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in chapter IV. So, opposite party contented that use of vehicle without registration in public place is violation of the limitations prescribed regarding the use of vehicle in the Motor Vehicle Act. So, the opposite party contented that repudiation of the claim of the petitioner is legal and no deficiency in service can attributed against the opposite party. So, petition is to be dismissed with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs.

Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

The petitioner produced a copy of certificate of insurance issued by the opposite

-3-

party and the said document is marked as Ext. A1. In Ext. A1 it is stated that liability of the insurer inrespect of accident is as per the motor vehicle Act 1988. The contention of the opposite party is that since the policy covers the use only as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 then only the opposite party is liable to compensate the petitioner. Opposite party produced a copy of temporary certificate of registration and the said document is marked as Ext. B2. In Ext. B2 validity of registration is for a period from 25..4..2005 to 2..5..2005. The date of accident is on 12..5..2005. So, it can be seen that there is no valid registration at the time of accident. The counsel for the petitioner argued that non registration of vehicle is not a defence available to the insurance company under section 149 (2) of the Actand only question to be decided is whether the petitioner had committed any violation of the policy conditions. We are of the opinion that the said contention of the petitioner is only applicable to the awards against persons insured inrespect of 3^rd party risk and it has no application in the present case. The registration of a Motor Vehicle is defined in chapter 4 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act states that no person shall drive any Motor vehicle and no owner of a Motor Vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be used in any public place unless the vehicle is registered inaccordance with the chapter IV of the Motor Vehicle Act. 1988. So, we are of the opinion that violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act is a breach of condition of policy. So, the insurance company cannot be directed to indmenfy the petitioner in loss sustained to him. So we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the petitioner. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-4-

Point No. 2

In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost is ordered .

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of November, 2008.