KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 286/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 30.9.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The Divisional Manager, : APPELLANT Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., PB No.20, Divisional Office, Shobha, T.S.M., Complex, Palakkad. (By Adv.G.S.KAlkura) Vs. Muraleedharan, Melethil Veedu, :RESPONDENT Tharuvakurissi, Kamadi.P.O., Palakkad. (By Adv.A.R.Gangadas) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Co. in OP.274/02 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25,085/- to the complainant towards the expenses incurred for repairing the vehicle and also Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.250/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that the car purchased on 22.8.02 and insured with opposite parties sustained damages in an accident on 1.9.02. The claim was repudiated alleging that the registration period of the vehicle had expired. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that the vehicle was not having valid registration and hence the appellants are not liable. It is also pointed out that the amount assessed by the surveyor is only Rs.19135/-. The temporary registration was only upto 26.8.02. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective sides and Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B3. 5.The counsel for the respondent/complainant has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High court of Kerala in Joby Thomas vs Annamma Augustine, 2010 (3) KHC 418 wherein it has been held that mere non registration of the vehicle can not be treated as a breach of policy conditions and that the insurance company is liable. We find that it was in a case of 3rd party liability. 6. In the instant case it is pointed out that as per section 43(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act the validity of the temporary registration is one month. The temporary registration in the instant case was only for 10 days. There was an omission to extend the same. Road Transport Authority also did not provide the registration within the above period it was not disputed that it was a new car purchased. Hence we find that the contention of the appellant in this regard is hypertechnical and liable to be rejected. 7. At the same time we find that the surveyor has assessed the cost of repair charges at Rs.19135/- The complainant has not proved that he incurred more expenses for repairs. The bills etc were not properly proved. Hence we find that the order of the forum is liable to be modified. The opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.19135/- towards repair charges with compensation, cost and interest as ordered by the Forum. The amounts are to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% per annum from the date of this order. Office will forward the LCR with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
