ORDER

(Passed this on 14^th Sepetember, 2017)

Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President

01.    This is a complaint of deficiency in service against Opposite Party No.1, M/s Bharati AXA General Insurance Company, and O.P. No.-2- Ketan Motors Ltd, Nagpur for not settling the claim in respect of repair expenses of the insured vehicle.

02.    The complainant purchased New Hyundai Fluid Verna car from the O.P. No.-2 under temporary registration number on 31/10/2011. It was insured with the O.P. No.-1 by O.P. No.-2 for I.D.V. Rupees- 9,14,504/- on the basis of Chasis and Engine numbers since the car was new brand. The policy was valid from 24/10/2011 to 23/10/2012. Due to some family engagements and illness the car could not be presented before the R.T.O. for registration. On 30/11/2011 the driver took the car to the R.T.O. for registration. But on the way the car met with an accident and sustained damages. The incident was immediately reported to O.P. No.-1 on 1/12/2011. The O.P. No.-1 asked the complainant to take the car to authorised service station for repairs on cashless facility. He submitted insurance claim. The repair estimate was Rs. 2,63,740.71/- which was claimed by him. After survey by the person of the O.P.-1, the O.P.-2 was asked to repair the car on cashless basis. On 16/12/2011 the complainant was told, the O.P.-1 stopped cashless repairs and so he had to pay for repairs. On inquiry, he was informed his car had no permanent registration number on the date of accident and therefore the claim could not be settled. However, the accident occurred within 30 days from date             of temporary registration number and therefore there was no violation of any provisions of the M.V Act. Hence prayer is made to direct the O.P.-1 Insurance Company to pay him Rs.2,63,740.71/- as repair expenses with interest along with compensation and cost.

03.    O.P.-1 Insurance Company  filed reply and admitted the policy of the said car. It is denied the car could not be taken for registration for the reasons stated in the complaint and then while taking it to R.T.O. it met with an accident. Further stated, after receipt of intimation, a surveyor was deputed and he assessed the loss to the tune of                          Rs. 1,82,202/-, but found the complainant was not entitled for the reason of non registration of the car. It was found the complainant without getting the car registered plied it on road, which dis entitled him to avail benefits under the policy. He had taken delivery of the car on 24/10/2011 and since then he was plying it on road without obtaining registration. As such there was violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is denied the car was having valid temporary registration number at the time of accident. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

04.    O.P.-2 Authorised Dealer of vehicle in its reply admitted the complainant had purchased the car from it on 31/10/2011. But it is denied it was sold under temporary registration number. It is admitted the car was insured with O.P.-1  Insurance Company on the basis of Chasis                     and Engine numbers. The O.P.-2 has no knowledge   about accident and claim made to the O.P.-1. But it is admitted the car was brought to its workshop in damaged condition and the complainant was asked to pay entire repair expenses as the O.P.-1 instructed it not to repair the car on cashless basis. No relief’s are claimed against it. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

05.    Heard Ld. counsels for both the sides. Perused documents, notes of arguments. Our findings for the reasons are as under-

FINDINGS  AND  REASONS

06.    There is some confusion in the complaint regarding date of purchase of the car vis-à-vis date of insurance policy. It is stated by the complainant the car was sold to him on 31/10/2011 and policy was from 24/10/2011 to 23/10/2012. Actually the car was delivered to the complainant on 24/10/2011. Delivery receipt is filed by the O.P. Therefore period of the insurance policy started from 24/10/2011 and it was valid till 23/10/2012. The complainant has filed copy of invoice receipt, which shows date 31/10/2011. But we are unable to fathom how the car was first delivered and then sold to the complainant. There is a gap of 7 days between delivery  and  sale  of  the  car.   No dealer will first deliver a vehicle to buyer without sale. Therefore it has to be presumed that the car was first sold and then delivered or both sale and delivery were done on same date. In any case the complainant got delivery of the car on 24/10/2011 on temporary registration number.

07.    It is an admitted fact that the car was insured on Chasis and Engine numbers since it was not registered that time. The accident to the car was taken place on 30/11/2011 when it had no permanent registration number. The temporary registration number must have been given on or before 24/10/2011, when it was delivered and insured. So on the date of accident the car had neither temporary nor permanent registration number.  Because as per Section 43(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act temporary registration shall  be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable. This was the only reason for the O.P. to repudiate the insurance claim. Thus the only issue is, if the vehicle does not have valid registration number on the date of accident, whether, use of the vehicle is in violation of  M.V. Act and condition of insurance policy ?

08.    Both the learned counsels have relied on some judgments on this point in support of their rival contentions. The judgments relied on by the counsel for the complainant are,

1. M/s Aroma Paints Ltd. v/s The New India Assurance Co, Revision Pet No. 626/2013 decided on 7/8/2013 (NC)

2. The Oriental Insurance Co v/s Swami Devi Dayal, Revision Pet. No. 497/ 2012 decided on 14/2/2012 (NC)

3. Oriental Insurance Co v/s Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd, Revision Pet No. 52/2012, decided on 27/2/2012 (NC)

4. IFFCO Tokio Gen Ins Co v/s Pratima Jha, Revision Pet No. 171/2012, decided on 27/4/2012 (NC)

          In all the above citations question was same as stated before on similar set of facts. Precisely, facts were that  the complainants obtained insurance policy, in respect of their vehicles from insurance company. During subsistence of the policy, the vehicles met with an accident and claims were lodged. The insurance company repudiated the claims on the ground that the complainants had not got done registration of their vehicles. The temporary registration numbers of the vehicles were already expired when accident had taken place. The National Commission allowed all the complaints and to arrive at that conclusion it was observed that non registration of the vehicle did not lead to the accident. Insurance policy was valid and the insurance company knew that the policy could not continue to be valid due to no permanent registration; it should have cancelled the policy. Further, it was also observed that if the complainant did      not have registration  number, he  was liable to be punished u/s 192 of the M.V. Act. Applicability of section 192 of the M.V. Act under such circumstances was found to be incomprehensible. Because insurance company does not enjoin the powers of traffic police. It cannot dismiss a claim under the guise of Sec. 192, which pertains to the powers of traffic police and court. It does not give any power to insurance company to press this section into service to dismiss the claim.

09.    As against this, judgments relied on by the Ld counsel for the O.P. are-

1. Reliance Gen Ins Co. v/s Viswa Dev Singh, Revision Pet No. 2721/2015, decided on 1/4/2016 (NC)

2. Baja Allianz Gen Ins Co. v/s Ashok Bhailal bhai Patel, Revision Pet No. 2593/2010 decided on 7/10/2015 (NC)

3. Shyam Singh Paikara v/s Br. Manager, Magma HDI Gen Ins Co, Revision Pet No. 1791/2015 decided on 26/4/2016 (NC)

          These judgments given on same facts, run counter to the one relied on by the complainant. In all the three judgments reliance was placed on a judgment rendered by

Hon´ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v/s New India Assurance Co. 2014 (7) SCC 40. The question was about

liability of the insurer in case of accident of an unregistered vehicle. Referring to the provisions contained in Section 39

and 43 of the M. V. Act, it was held, as per Section 39 of             the  M. V.  Act, no  person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration. Therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable u/s 192 of the M.V. Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract. Therefore the complaint was dismissed on account of the vehicle not being registered at the time it met with an accident.

10.    It is to be noted that all the judgments, relied on by the Learned counsel for the O.P., were rendered recently and subsequent to the judgments relied on by the Ld. counsel for the complainant. Therefore we have to rely on the recent judgments as per rule  of precedents.  We are of  the  opinion that this case is squarely covered by the judgments quoted on behalf of the O.P.-1 Insurance Company.

11.    For aforesaid reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the order.

                         ORDER

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of judgment shall be given to  both the parties, free of cost