DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE, DELHI – 110006

CC No. 289/2016

No. DF/Central                                                                      

Om Prakash Gahlawat,

R/o D-181A, III Floor, KH No. 487,

Peera Garhi Chowk, Near Rawat Motor,

Rohtak Road,  New Delhi - 110087 

                                                                                    …… COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

DRO-2, 4E/14, Azad Bhawan,Jhandewalan Extn.,

New Delhi - 110055

  …..OPPOSITE PARTY                 

ORDER

Rekha Rani, President

1.       The instant complaint was filed by Omprakash Gahlawat (in short the complainant) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as amended inter alia pleading therein the following facts:

          He purchased vehicle bearing Chassis No. MC2F8HRCOFA100448 and Engine No. E413CDFAO13544 on 23/02/2015 from M/s Sincere Marketing

Service Pvt. Ltd. which vehicle was insured with OP vide policy bearing No. 272600/31/2015/4257 for a period 23/02/2015 to 22/02/2016.        On the night 23/24/02/2015 the vehicle was found missing.   A call was made immediately on

No. 100 and FIR was registered bearing no. 137 dated 11/03/2015 under section 379 of  I.P.C. at Police Station Mundaka.  Insurance Company was also intimated about the theft of the vehicle.  Untraced report of the vehicle was accepted by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi.  OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 07/09/2015 for want of registration no. of the vehicle.   Complainant has claimed Rs. 13,48,814/- with interest @ 18% per annum alleging deficient services on the part of OP.

2.       On receipt of notice OP filed written statement.  It is pleaded that delivery of the vehicle was taken on 23/02/2015 from the dealer but the information of the purchase was never intimated to the concerned RTO until the same was stolen and that the vehicle was without any temporary / permanent registration number issued by concerned RTO at the time of theft.  

It is further pleaded that insured has violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 by not getting the vehicle registered within 7 days from the date of its delivery i.e. 23/02/2015 and plying the vehicle without registration when the vehicle was alleged to have been stolen.

It is further stated that as per section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 42 and 47 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 vehicle is not useable

on roads till it receives certificate of registration from competent authority.                 

3.       We have heard  Sh. Abhishek Advocate Learned Counsel for complainant and Sh. Rajnish Kumar advocate for OP.  We have perused the material available on record.

4.       OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time it was stolen and therefore, complainant has violated provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.   There is no dispute regarding the insurance of the vehicle in dispute with the OP.   It is also not disputed that theft of the vehicle was reported by the complainant to the police and an FIR was registered and that intimation of theft was also given to the OP.

5.     In United India Vs Sarabjeet Singh  decided by  Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  on 23.04.2014 the vehicle in  question was not having permanent registration number and the temporary registration number which had  been allotted had already expired on the date when the accident took place.  The question which fell for consideration was

whether on account of non holding of valid registration certificate at the time of accident of the vehicle the insurance company could legally repudiate the claim of complainant or not?   It was observed by the State Commission that registration of the vehicle and incident of accident were two different matters and there was no connectivity or linkage between the two.  It was also observed that the complainant did not obtain the registration certificate to his own detriment and repudiation  of his claim was not justified.   Reliance was placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. V/s Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd & Ors II (2012) CPJ 102 (NC) , Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pratima  Jha II (2012) CPJ 512 (NC) , HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ila Gupta & Ors I (2007)  CPJ 274 (NC) and Aroma Paints Ltd & Anr V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 635 (NC).  Learned State Commission Chandigarh quoted observations made  by National Commission in Aroma Paints (supra) as under:

“13. It is difficult to fathom as to why section 192 can be made applicable under the circumstances. The Insurance Company does not enjoin the powers of traffic police. They cannot dismiss the claim under the guise of Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 192 of the said Act, pertains  to the powers of

traffic police and the Court.  It does not give any power to the Insurance Company to press this section into service, while dismissing the claim of the claimant/ complainant. Thirdly, it is mere negligence and in action on the part of the complainant.  There is no evidence to show that he had an ulterior motive. It is difficult to understand, why he should be deprived of the claim made by him, before the Insurance Company.  Except under Section 192, he has not committed any offence.  Negligence on his part, cannot be equated with mens rea. He did not obtain the registration certificate for his own detriment. The insurance company is not affected by the said negligence on his part.” 

6.   In Kaushalendera Kumar Mishra V/s Oriental Insurance  Co. Ltd. REVISION PETITION NO.4043 OF 2008 (Against the order dated 19.05.2008 in Appeal

No.2433 of 2007) decided on 16.02.2012 District Forum held that use of the vehicle without registration was a matter to be dealt under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the insurer and the insured are bound by the terms of the contract between them. In the absence of a specific condition in the policy that if the owner does not get the vehicle registered within a period of seven days of its

purchase, the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay for the loss of the vehicle it was not proper to repudiate the claim on this ground. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum allowed the claim and directed the Insurance Company to pay the claim.  The decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna, Madhya Pradesh was reversed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission held that it was a case of a vehicle being used without registration which was not only a violation of the terms of the policy but also of the law and therefore, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim. Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the revision petition observing that registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of the law as per section 39 of the Act and that use of the vehicle in violation of the law will take the claim beyond the protection of the policy.

7.  In Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd Civil Appeal No.8463 Of  2014 decided on  04.09.2014 by Apex Court facts on record were that  complainant had purchased a Mahindra Pick UP BS-II 4WD vehicle and

got it insured for an amount of Rs. 4,30,037/- with respondent no.1–M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the period 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2006. The vehicle was temporarily registered for one month period, which expired on 11.1.2006. However, on 2.2.2006, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. The complainant lodged FIR and informed about it to the respondent-Company, which appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.2,60,845/- on repair basis.  The insurance claim was, however, repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the person Rajeev Hetta, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and also that the vehicle had not been registered after the expiry of the temporary registration.  Complainant filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum, Shimla.  District Forum Shimla allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 75% of  4,30,037/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon with effect from the date of filing of the complaint.  Against the order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed before the State Commission, one by New India

Assurance Co. and other by the complainant.  The State Commission accepted the Appeal of the Insurance Company and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.  The appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed as infructuous.  It is against this order that Revision Petition No. 4951 of  2012 was filed before National Commission.  National Commission vide its order dated 12.04.13 dismissed the Revision Petition

which order was challenged before the Apex Court.   Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

‘’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.’’

Accordingly Insurance Company was held justified in repudiating the claim qua loss/damage to the vehicle which was being driven without valid registration certificate.

8.  In United India Insurance Company Vs Sukhwinder Singh First Appeal No. A/306/ 2014 decided on 13/10/2014 , State Commission, Chandigarh relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra) held that since the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 39 of the Act , at the time the theft therof was committed, the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

9.       In Bagwat Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Revision Petition No. 3044 of 2014) decided on 05.11.2014 by National Commission as per admitted facts 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 02.02.2006 when the

vehicle was without any registration. There was nothing on record to show that before or after 11.1.2006 when the period of temporary registration expired, 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. Relying on the judgement of Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra)

Hon’ble National Commission observed:

“In our view , therefore, using a vehicle on

the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract. It has been made clear in the above order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that for failure to meet the statutory requirements regarding the registration of vehicle, the complainant was not entitled to get the claim even on Non-Standard basis.”

10. Although in Sarabjeet Singh case (supra)  Hon’ble State  Commission  Chandigarh vide its order dated 23.04.2014 had allowed the claim  notwithstanding non availability of permanent registration certificate of the vehicle at the time of accident but subsequently in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh dated 04.09.2014 (supra), State

Commission Chandigarh in Sukhwinder Singh vide its order dated 13.10.2014 (supra) dismissed the claim on account of using the vehicle without registration certificate. 

11. In the instant case on 04/05/2018 Shri Ashish Tilwani Advocate for

complainant  made a statement :

‘’There is an inadvertent error in para 5 page no. 2 of my complaint.  Theft of the vehicle took place on 11/03/2015 and not on 23/24-02-2015.  Complainant does not have even temporary registration certificate of the vehicle in question.  I am not able to explain as to how registration no. MP11/TRE9036 is mentioned in letter dated 22/03/2016 of the complaint addressed to Sandeep Raina Oriental Insurance Company Service Centre.’’

12.     In para 1 of the complaint it is mentioned that complainant purchased the vehicle on 23/02/2015.  As per statement of Learned Counsel for complainant made above theft of the vehicle took place on 11/03/2015.  Complainant has placed on record copy of his letter dated 15/09/2015 addressed to OP wherein he stated that :

‘’With reference to your letter no. Ref. No.202/SR/Theft dt. 07/09/2015 regarding the Temporary or Permanent

                            Registration number.  I wish to inform

        you that no Registration number was

        allotted to me from concern authority.’’     

Complainant could not show even temporary registration certificate of the vehicle.Copy of a letter of complainant dated 22/03/2016 addressed to Sandeep Raina of OP is placed on record vide which complainant claimed that he had temporary registration no. MP11/TRE9036.When this document was shown to learned counsel for complainant he made a statement that he was unable to explain as to how the said registration no. is mentioned as complainant could not show any such registration certificate of the vehicle.

Accordingly in view of the Apex court judgment in Narinder Singh

dated 04.09.2014 (supra) the claim is  disallowed. Complaint is dismissed.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced this 28^th  day of  May  2018.