DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 65/2018

No. DC/ Central/2021/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1. Tanumesh Maji (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in short OP1) pleading therein that complainant purchased two wheeler KTM RC-390 and got the same insured vide Policy No. 272300/31/2018/3783 from OP.  It is further stated complainant purchased the said vehicle from Dewan Auto (in short OP2). It is alleged that vehicle was delivered without registration although complainant had paid requisite money to the vendor. The said vehicle was allegedly stolen on 23.10.2017 from his friend’s place and written information in this regard was given to Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on 24.10.2017.  OP1 is stated to have repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of theft.  Hence, the instant complaint was filed by the complainant seeking direction to OP1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,23,948/- with interest at the rate of 16% p.a., Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. OP, namely, the insurer also  filed reply. OPs filed reply. It is stated that vehicle was not registered at the time of theft. It is alleged that registration was applied for with State Transport Department Saikh Sarai on 25.10.2017 after the vehicle was stolen.  It is pleaded that complainant did not produce the vehicle before the transport authority and that without inspection of the vehicle registration certificate cannot be issued and therefore there is a possibility of nexus between the complainant and the State Transport Authority.
3. Dewan Auto (OP2) also filed reply. It is pleaded that the vehicle in question was forcibly taken by the complainant from the showroom of OP2.  It is stated that OP2 clearly informed the complainant about the registration procedure but complainant was adamant to take delivery of the vehicle stating that he will be responsible for any incident.  It is further pleaded that OP2 having sold the vehicle to the complainant is not liable to pay anything to the complainant.
4. Parties filed their affidavits in support of their cases.  We have heard the parties.
5. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was not registered at the time of theft.  Complainant has placed on record a receipt issued by the transport department Sheikh Sarai which is dated 25.10.2017 Vehicle was stolen on 23.10.2017. Written information regarding theft of the vehicle was given SHO Police Station Mukherji Nagar by one person, namely, Sh. Sanjay Kumar on 24.10.2017.  It is stated therein that he had borrowed the said vehicle on 13.10.2017 from the complainant.
6. It is pleaded in Para 4 of the complaint that OP2 delivered the vehicle to the complainant without registration number.  OP2 in its reply stated that complainant was adamant in taking delivery of the vehicle without registration saying that he will bear the consequences.
7. Complainant has not placed anything on record to indicate that he ever requested OP2 to facilitate registration of the vehicle nor the complainant filed any complaint against OP2 in this regard.
8. Vehicle was stolen on 23.10.2017, Registration of the vehicle was applied on 25.10.2017 that is quickly after theft. Why same alacrity was not displayed by the complainant for obtaining registration of the vehicle after taking delivery of the vehicle?  Complainant was plying the vehicle on public road without bothering to obtain registration certificate which is mandatory.
9. In Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8463/2014, the facts of the case were that complainant had purchased a Mahindra Pick UP vehicle and got the vehicle temporary registration for one month which expired on 11.01.2006.  The vehicle met with an accident on 02.02.2006 and got damaged. The insurer rejected the claim on the ground that vehicle had not been registered after expiry of temporary registration.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  The insurer approached State Commission by way of Appeal. State Commission allowed the Appeal and dismissed the complaint.  Complainant preferred Revision Petition before the National Commission. National Commission observed that on the date of accident, the vehicle was being driven without registration which is prohibited under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and is also an offence under Section 192 of the said Act and accordingly dismissed the complaint. 

SLP was filed before the Apex Court. Hon. Apex Court observed

“12. A bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

  13. However, according to Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarified that the period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the registering authority only in a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chassis to which body has not been attached and the same is etained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.

14. 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.”

10. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, Hon. Supreme Court vide its order dated 30.09.2021 observed that:-

“13. In the present case, the temporary registration of the respondent’s vehicle had expired on 28-07-2011. Not only was the vehicle driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place other than the respondent’s premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. In these circumstances, the ratio of Narinder Singh (supra) applies, in the opinion of this court. That Narinder Singh (supra) was in the context of an accident, is immaterial. Despite this, the respondent plied his vehicle and took it to Jodhpur, where the theft took place. It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court’s opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19886. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh (supra), entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy.”

11. The facts of the case before the Hon. Supreme Court in Sushil kumar Godara (supra) were “the policy holder had purchased a new Bolero which had a temporary registration. That registration lapsed on 19-07-2011. The complainant never alleged or proved that he applied for a permanent registration, or sought extension of the temporary registration beyond 19-07-2011. He travelled outside his residence, to Jodhpur, in his car, and stayed overnight in a guest house. In the morning of 28-07-2011, he discovered that the car had been stolen, when parked outside the guest house premises in Jodhpur”.

Hon. Supreme Court also observed that:-

        “It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court’s opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19886. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh (supra), entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy.”

12. In view of the above discussion, complaint is dismissed.

13. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this  26^th September of 2022.