Heard Mr. R. Kharkrang, Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.Jindal, Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 12.10.2022, arising out of the Consumer Complaint case No. 06/2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, Shillong (hereinafter mentioned as ‘District Commission’) whereby and whereunder the District Commission has awarded the amount under different headings. First Rs. 2,09,400/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Nine Thousand Four Hundred) only along with 12% interest. Second Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousands) only compensation for deficiency in service and for mental agony, and Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty) only for litigation cost.

          3. The facts in the present case are in narrow encompass which are briefly as follows :

          4. The Complainant/Respondent purchased the Insurance Policy vide 2011-V 1199019-FCV dated 9^th May 2011 for his vehicle TATA Pickup 207, Registration No. ML-05D-1461 for the period from 22.04.11 to 21.04.12. While the aforesaid pickup vehicle was standing in the parking, it met with an accident on account of falling of a truck over the said vehicle causing a heavy damage of the same. The said incident was reported to the Insurance Company and lodged claim being Claim No. CV-117331 with respect to the insured vehicle. The Claimant, along with the claim form had also submitted all the relevant documents i.e, FIR dated 09.05.2011, Cash Memo bill dated 17.05.2012 and receipt voucher dated 17.05.2012 with respect to the damaged vehicle. On receipt of the complaint, the Appellant/ Insurance Company vide email dated 08.10.2012 informed the Claimant/Respondent Company that they had appointed and deputed an independent IRDA Licensed Surveyor, Shri S. Das Purkayastha to survey the damaged vehicle and assess the loss. Accordingly, the surveyor submitted the report but the same was not supplied to the Claimant/Respondent Company. Insurance Company, vide email dated 10.08.2012 informed the Claimant/Company that they had received all the documents pertaining to the insured vehicle along with the fitness certificate which expired on 28.04.2005 and the same was renewed on 26.07.2012. In reply, the Claimant company vide email dated 13.08.2012 informed that the insured vehicle was in good running condition at the time of accident. The insured vehicle was parked and was not in operation. Insurance Company, vide letter dated 23.08.2012, intimated the Complainant/ Respondent Company that the claim had been repudiated and the account was closed on account of invalid fitness certificate at the time of accident, for support,  placed reliance on Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as Motor Vehicles Act) and also mentioned that failure to hold the fitness certificate to be considered as invalid registered vehicle under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

          5. The matter could not be settled, so the Claimant filed a Consumer Complaint and submits that before registration of vehicle as per Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 (hereinafter mentioned as ‘the Rules’) requires that the vehicle must be insured, only then the registration of the vehicle would be done. The insurance of the vehicle is pre-requisite for the registration of the vehicle and not the fitness certificate is pre-requisite for the vehicle registration.

          6. On service of notice, the Appellant/ Insurance Company appeared and has taken a plea that the claim was rightly repudiated as on the date of accident. The vehicle was not holding fitness certificate. So rightly, Insurance Company has refused to grant the benefit of compensation. As stated above, the District Commission, wrongly allowed partly the claim in favour of the Respondent/Company @ 75 % of the total cost incurred of Rs. 2,79,200 (Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred) only and other amount under different heads as compensation.

     7. In this present case, two issues are required to be dealt with. First, whether the Respondent/ Claimant is entitled to the compensation from the Appellant in view of having no fitness certificate as provided under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Secondly, if the Respondent/Claimant is entitled, what amount?

     8. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that Sections 56 & 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act postulate that even if the vehicle is parked inside the premises without being in use, it is required to have fitness certificate and failure to get a fitness certificate will disentitle the owner for the insurance amount. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on few judgments. 1. Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324 (para 11 & 12) and 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Godara, (2021) 14 SCC 519  (para 14). And a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter mentioned as NCDRC) in the case of Naveen Kumar vrs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another reported in 2019 SCC onLine NCDRC 1738 and Srikant Madhav Karve Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 146.

      9. In reply, counsel for the Respondent has submitted that fitness certificate is not sine qua non for entitlement of compensation from the Insurance Company arising from the damage caused to the vehicle on account of accident. He has submitted that in the Rule 47 of ‘the Rules’, it has been mentioned that for registration, a valid Insurance Certificate is required. So, on that basis, he has submitted that before registration, the Insurance is a must but for Insurance registration, the fitness certificate is not the pre-requisite. He has further submitted that entitlement of insurance amount is dependent upon terms and condition of contract between owner of vehicle and Insurance Company unless it is mentioned in the contract that  violation of any of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, will disentitle the owner, the compensation amount. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a few case laws viz 1. the judgment of NCDR in the case of HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Vrs Ila Gupta and others reported in  1(2007) CPJ 274 NC and 2.  the judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab rendered in the case of M/S Cosmo Pharmacals Ltd vrs M/S Future General Insurance and another, First Appeal No. 1476 of 2010, disposed of on 6^th March 2014 and the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahaboob Ali Khan, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 6992.

      10. Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that the District Commission has awarded the compensation beyond the valuation of the vehicle as mentioned in the cover note of insurance policy and, as such, the owner of the vehicle will be entitled to the compensation, maximum amount up-to the extent of Rs.1,60,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand) Only. And in support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide,  reported in, (1996) 4 SCC 704 (Para 6).

     11. Per contra, counsel for the Respondent submitted that he will address this Commission on the issue of quantum of compensation which is dependent on the quotation of value of vehicle given by the customer not on the basis of the amount mentioned in the Insurance Policy. He further submits that in support of his submission he will bring judgments but on next appointed date of the present case, the counsel failed to produce any judgment in support of his submission.

          12. For deciding issues involved in the present case, we are required to examine certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which are as follows :

          Relevant sections of Motor Vehicles Act :-

“ Section 56. .Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles.—

1. Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle     requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that where the prescribed authority or the “authorized testing station” refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.
2. The “authorized testing station” referred to in sub-section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made bsy the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages.
3. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act.
4. The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained: 1[Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on the basis of the report of an officer having such qualifications.
5. A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective be valid throughout India.  
6. All transport vehicles with a valid certificate of fitness issued under this section shall carry, on their bodies, in a clear and visible manner such distinguishing mark as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
7. Subject to such conditions as the Central Government may prescribe, the provisions of this section may be extended to non-transport vehicles.

Section 39.Necessity for registration.— No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Section 53. Suspension of registration.—

(1) If any registering authority or other prescribed authority has reason to believe that any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction—

1.  is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public, or that it fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder, or
2.  has been, or is being, used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such, the authority may, after giving the owner an opportunity of making any representation he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle—
9.  in any case falling under clause (a), until the defects are rectified to its satisfaction; and
217.  in any case falling under clause (b), for a period not exceeding four months.

(2) An authority other than a registering authority shall, when making a suspension order under sub-section (1), intimate in writing the fact of such suspension and the reasons therefor to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is at the time of the suspension.

(3) Where the registration of a motor vehicle has been suspended under sub-section (1) for a continuous period of not less than one month, the registering authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was when the registration was suspended, shall, if it is not the original registering authority, inform that authority of the suspension.

(4) The owner of a motor vehicle shall, on the demand of a registering authority or other prescribed authority which has suspended the certificate of registration of the vehicle under this section, surrender the certificate of registration.

(5) A certificate of registration surrendered under sub-section (4) shall be returned to the owner when the order suspending registration has been rescinded and not before.

Section 54. Cancellation of registration suspended under section 53.—

Where the suspension of registration of a vehicle under section 53 has continued without interruption for a period of not less than six months, the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was when the registration was suspended, may, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the registration, and if it is not the original registering authority, shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority which may cancel the registration.

Section 55. Cancellation of registration.—

(1) If a motor vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use, the owner shall, within fourteen days or as soon as may be, report the fact to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward to the authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle.

(2) The registering authority shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the registration and the certificate of registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the report and the certificate of registration to the original registering authority and that authority shall cancel the registration.

(3) Any registering authority may order the examination of a motor vehicle within its jurisdiction by such authority as the State Government may by order appoint and, if upon such examination and after giving the owner an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), it is satisfied that the vehicle is in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public and that it is beyond reasonable repair, may cancel the registration.

(4) If a registering authority is satisfied that a motor vehicle has been permanently removed out of India, the registering authority shall cancel the registration.

(5) If a registering authority is satisfied that the registration of a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration, the registering authority shall after giving the owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), and for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the registration.

(6) A registering authority cancelling the registration of a motor vehicle under section 54 or under this section shall communicate such fact in writing to the owner of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle shall forthwith surrender to that authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle.

(7) A registering authority making an order of cancellation under section 54 or under this section shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the vehicle in its records, and, if it is not the original registering authority, forward the certificate of registration to that authority, and that authority shall cancel the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the motor vehicle in its records.

(8) The expression “original registering authority” in this section and in sections 41, 49, 50, 52, 53 and 54 means the registering authority in whose records the registration of the vehicle is recorded.

(9) In this section “certificate of registration” includes a certificate of registration renewed under the provisions of this Act.

Section 192.  Using vehicle without registration.—

(1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both: Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injuries or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose: Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use.

(3) The Court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the Court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made.

192A Using vehicle without permit. —

(1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both: Provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injury or for the transport of materials for repair or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose: Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use.

(3) The court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made.]

192B. Offences relating to registration.—

(1) Whoever, being the owner of a motor vehicle, fails to make an application for registration of such motor vehicle under sub-section (1) of section 41 shall be punishable with fine of five times the annual road tax or one-third of the lifetime tax of the motor vehicle whichever is higher.

(2) Whoever, being a dealer, fails to make an application for the registration of a new motor vehicle under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 41 shall be punishable with fine of fifteen times the annual road tax or the lifetime tax of the motor vehicle whichever is higher.

(3) Whoever, being the owner of a motor vehicle, obtains a certificate of registration for such vehicle on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but may extend to one year and with fine equal to ten times the amount of the annual road tax or two-third the lifetime tax of the motor vehicle, whichever is higher.

(4) Whoever, being a dealer, obtains a certificate of registration for such vehicle on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but may extend to one year and with fine equal to ten times the amount of annual road tax or two third the lifetime tax of the motor vehicle, whichever is higher.]”

          13. The Rule 47 of ‘the Rules,1989’ is as follows:-

“ Rule 47. Application for registration of motor vehicles.—

(1) An application for registration of a motor vehicle shall be made in Form 20 to the registering authority within a period of 7 [seven days] from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, excluding the period of journey and shall be accompanied by—

(a) sale certificate in Form 21;

(b) valid insurance certificate;

(c) copy of the proceedings of the State Transport Authority or Transport Commissioner or such other authorities as may be prescribed by the State Government for the purpose of approval of the design in the case of a trailer or a semi trailer;

(d) original sale certificate from the concerned authorities in Form 21 in the case of exarmy vehicles;

(e) proof of address by way of any one of the documents referred to in rule 4;

(f) temporary registration, if any;

(g) road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers, [Form 22A] from the body-builders;

(h) custom's clearance certificate in the case of imported vehicles along with the licence and bond, if any: Provided that in the case of imported vehicles other than those imported under the Baggage Rules, 1998, the procedure followed by the registering authority shall be same as those procedure followed for registering of vehicles manufactured in India, and;

(i) appropriate fee as specified in rule 81.

(j) proof of citizenship.

(k) Proof of legal presence in India in addition to proof of residence in case of foreigners.

(2) In respect of vehicles temporarily registered, application under sub-rule (1) shall be made before the temporary registration expires.”

     Analysis of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

       14. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place without the vehicle being registered in accordance with the law. Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that if a Motor Vehicle without being registered is used in any public place will constitute a danger to the public and fails to comply the requirement of the Act or it is being used for hire or reward without valid permit. The Authority would give notice and seek explanation and after due consideration, assigning the reason, suspend the registration certificate of the vehicle and that would be communicated to the owner of the vehicle. Section 54 talks about the cancellation of registration which has been suspended under Section 53 which states that where the order of suspension has been passed under Section 53 and continues uninterrupted for not less than 6 months, the Registering Authority will have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the said vehicle. Section 55 talks about the cancellation of registration of the vehicle in the event the said Motor Vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of being in use. In such case, the owner of the vehicle would submit the information within 14 days to the registering authority and the registering authority would act in accordance with law to cancel the registration. Section 56 fixed a condition that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act if vehicle fails to carry fitness certificate. Unless it carries a certificate of fitness containing such particular and information as prescribed by the Central Government, the transport vehicle will not be plied in the public road.

          15. Section 192 talks of the consequences if the motor vehicle is being plied in contravention of Section 39 or without valid permit in public road. Herein and also it has been mentioned that if the vehicle is used contrary to the provision of Section 39 of the Act, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable for punishment and the details have been narrated. The quantum of fine of Rs.2,000/- has been stipulated for the first offence if the vehicle continues to ply in the public place. Second time the owner of the vehicle may be awarded the imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine of Rs.3,000/-.

          16. Rule 47 of ‘the Rules’ deals with in what form along with necessary documents to be attached for registration of vehicle. List of documents have been mentioned, one of the document is required i.e. valid insurance certificate. In the list of document, nowhere fitness certificate of vehicle has been mentioned. So fitness certificate is not the essential document for registration of vehicle rather insurance of vehicle is a must.

     17. On analysis of aforesaid provisions, a safe conclusion is arrived that for registration of vehicle, insurance of vehicle is required, whereas fitness certificate is not required for the registration of vehicle. The transport vehicle should not be plied in the public road/public place without valid registration and fitness certificate of vehicle. If vehicle is plied in public road, in such condition, it would cause danger to public and failure to comply the Act and the Rule will attract cancellation of registration. All provisions of Motor Vehicles Act precludes to ply the vehicle in the public road violating the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act or its Rule framed thereunder.

          18. Let us examine the judgments relied upon by the appellant. The facts of Narindra Singh (SUPRA) case are that the vehicle was not registered. It was not the case of fitness of the vehicle rather it was a case where the vehicle itself remained unregistered inasmuch as the Driver was also not holding a driving license. Though the said vehicle was registered temporarily but the period was already over. The said vehicle met with an accident during that period of non-registration. In that context the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that Section 39 mandates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in the public road without a valid registration being granted by the Registering Authority in accordance with the law. It would be relevant to quote paras 11 & 12 of the said judgment :

“11. 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. 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 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 detained 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.

12. 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”.

          19. It is clear from the said judgment that the vehicle should not run in the public road without it being registered as per the law.

          20. The second judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Godara (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has placed reliance of the judgment of Narinder Singh case and reiterated that  without registration, the vehicle should not ply in any public road. Herein also, the said vehicle was temporary registered but the period of the registration expired and thereafter no permanent registration was done, when the vehicle met with an accident. It is better to quote paragraph 13 & 14 of the said judgment :

“13. In Naveen Kumar (supra), NCDRC decided a reference, to its bench, and held that:

"9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the reference is answered in following terms:-

(i) If a vehicle without a valid registration is or has been used/driven on a public place or any other place that would constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance even if the vehicle is not being driven at the time it is stolen or is damaged:

(ii) If a vehicle without a valid registration is used/driven on a public place or any other place, it would constitute a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy even if the owner of the vehicle has applied for the issuance of a registration in terms of S.41 of the Act before expiry of the temporary registration, but the regular registration has not been issued".

(emphasis supplied)

14. 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.“

     21. Another judgment of NCDRC has been cited by the counsel for the appellant, i.e., Naveen Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1738,  where the reference was made for the authoritative pronouncement about the violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Here is the case of none registration of vehicle. It has been said that it should not be driven on the public or any other place without any registration that would constitute breach of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance even if the vehicle is not being driven at the time of stolen or damaged, but the National Commission did not give an answer that if the Motor Vehicle is parked in a garage, parking lot or the roadside at the time it has a valid registration, but the registration has expired while the vehicle is still parked in the garage or parking lot or on the road. The National Commission has said that it is a hypothetical question beyond the scope of reference and does not need to be answer.

          22. Let us consider the submission of the respondent that for registration certificate, it is pre-requisite that the vehicle must be insured and there is no such pre-requisite that the vehicle should carry the fitness certificate. Further, he said that the entitlement of the claim of insurance would be governed by the terms and condition of the contract mentioned in the cover note of the insurance documents which was given to the claimant. And has further said that there is no stipulation prescribing that in the event of the accident causing damage, failure to have a fitness certificate would dis-entitle the claimant of the claim or have not stated about the violation of any of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. It would be relevant to analyze the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rendered in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vrs Mahaboob Ali Khan and another, as cited supra, where the vehicle has met with an accident in which the passenger sustained injury, admitted in the hospital and in the course of treatment his left leg was amputated. A claim was made but was repudiated by the Insurance Company taking a plea that the vehicle was not carrying the fitness certificate, so the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Karnataka High Court has said that a fitness certificate is not one of the condition of the insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company cannot take such defence and allow the claim. It would be relevant to quote  paragraphs 10 & 11 from the said judgment :

“10. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.

11. The occurrence of the accident due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry on 19.6.2008 and also injury sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation and liability of the insurance company to compensate the claimant. In the accident the claimant has lost the left leg above knee. Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that as on the date of accident though there is coverage of insurance policy from 5.2.2008 to 4.2.2009, the offending vehicle was not having the fitness certificate. Unless the vehicle possesses the fitness certificate, it cannot be brought on public road. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant. Whereas the claimant contended that such a defence is not available under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the fitness certificate is not one of the conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company cannot take such a defence. I find some substance in the contention of the claimant. In the insurance policy no such condition is imposed. This Hon'ble court in an unreported decision in MFA No. 9625 of 2008; decided on 24.8.2012, at para 13 has held as under:

“What is relevant to be noted here is, if the contention of the insurer that the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle is valid from 20.3.2002 to 19.3.2003 as stated in Exh. R-3, letter addressed by the Investigator to insurance company, were to be true, they could not have issued the insurance policy, Exh. R. 1, on 27.12.2005 valid from 26.12.2005 up to 25.12.2006. Non-possession of fitness certificate by the owner of offending vehicle as on the date of accident is not one of the grounds on which the insurer can defend their action and oppose saddling of liability against them and it is not the defence under which they can claim exemption from liability. Even in the insurance policy, Exh. R. 1, issued by the insurer in favour of the offending vehicle possessing fitness certificate is not one of the conditions of breach of policy.”

          23. Counsel for the Respondent has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission rendered in the case of M/s Cosmo Pharmacals Ltd (supra). In fact this judgment has been delivered on 6^th March 2014 and after that the judgment in the case of Narindra Singh has come and has been decided on 4^th September, 2014. So, for this reason, judgment of State Commission does not carry material sustainable value in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is deemed to have been overruled. Though in the present case, it has been said that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim when there is no breach of any term of contract mentioned in policy document. The insurance is a matter of contract between the parties and the parties are govern by the contract itself and has placed reliance on the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it has been held that the agreement of insurance will have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability arising out of the Insurance. It would be relevant to quote paragraphs 13 & 14 of the said judgment :

“13. This very point also came up for consideration before the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1503 of 2004 decided on 29th of October 2007 (G.Kothainachiar v. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.). A clear distinction was made in that case about the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was held therein that the liability of the Insurance Company is twofold; i) statutory liability as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, and (ii) liability to the insured as per the terms of the contract. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim when there is no breach of the terms of the policy because the insurance is a matter of contract between the parties and the parties are governed by the terms of the contract itself. While recording that finding reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan [(1999) 6 SCC 451 (p. 455) wherein it was observed as under:-

"17. The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. That being so, the insured has also to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations or terms of the policy expressly set out therein."

14. Reliance was also placed on another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shimla vs. Kamla & Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 342 at page 350 wherein it was observed as under:-

"25. The insurer and the insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to be insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence."

Ultimately, it was held that the Insurance Company can repudiate the claim of the insured when there is breach of the policy condition/conditions; and, the breach was fundamental or material so as to vitiate the insurance contract”.

     24. Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court reported in 2016 SCC Online Bom 116 (Shrikant Madhav Karve vrs Secretary (Parivahan IV) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India). This judgment does not apply in the present case as the Hon’ble Court was dealing with enforcement of the different provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Para 12 & 36 of the said judgment has been given in that context and the issue was not there with regard to the entitlement of compensation on failure to have a fitness certificate. So this present case cited above does not apply.

    25. In the present case, the Appellant, in the complaint petition, has mentioned that the vehicle was parked inside the campus which was not a public road. Though the vehicle was in a good condition, the truck had fallen upon the vehicle, which caused damage to the said vehicle. It is to be stated that the vehicle was not parked in the public road and, as such, Section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act does not apply in this case in the sense that it was not plying in the public road.

     26. All the three judgments cited by the Appellant specifically said that the vehicle which has not been registered should not ply on any public road. If they do so, then they commit an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act as per Sec 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is also important to note that the registration of the damage vehicle was not under suspension under Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act, nor did the registration has been cancelled under Sections 54 & 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So, it is a validly registered vehicle and the said vehicle was parked in the premises where the accident took place.

     27. The cover note of the insurance policy and entire insurance documents, which is part of the complaint petition do not reflect any stipulation that failure to obtain fitness certificate or violation of the Motor Vehicles Act would dis-entitle the claimant of the insurance. So, after discussing the entire facts and circumstances, the judgments cited at the bar and submissions of both parties, the Commission arrives at the finding that Section 56 is subject to the condition of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act which stipulates that the vehicle should not be plying on any public place/public road. It talks about the registration under Section 39 which is compulsory for plying in the public road. The deeming clause that has been mentioned in Section 56 is in context of the Motor Vehicle plying in the public place making essential as stipulated under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the condition will not be extended to the vehicle standing in the parking within the premises.

     28. In view of the discussions made here-in-above, we are of the view that the respondent is entitled to the compensation under the Insurance Policy, but the discussion does not end here.

     29. The Respondent/ Claimant has said that he will be entitled to the compensation as per his declaration and he has taken time to produce the judgment. But no such judgment has been placed by the Respondent.

     30. Per contra, counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide  reported in (1996) 4 SCC 704 wherein in paragraph 6 the question has been framed whether the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission will go beyond the terms and conditions of the contract, and answer has been given that the liability of compensation to be fixed in terms of the contract and mentioned in the insurance document. In the present case, the depreciation value of the vehicle has to be taken into consideration. The cover note of the insurance policy reflects the value of the vehicle as Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand) only. So, while deciding the compensation, it has to be kept in mind that this vehicle has been purchased earlier and a schedule has been given in the cover note of insurance policy wherein in what manner the depreciation of the vehicle is to be calculated. Where it has been mentioned that the depreciation value of the vehicle after 6 months to 1 year becomes 5%, 1 year to 2 years is 10%, 2 years to 3 years is 15%, 3 to 4 years 25%, 4 years and not exceeding 5 years is 35%, 5 years and not exceeding 10 years is 40% and exceeding 10 years is 50%. The term of contract has been mentioned in the policy. So, the Claimant cannot make a claim beyond the terms of contract arrived between the parties.

     31. In such view of the matter, we modify the order/judgment of the District Commission to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to the compensation amount but he will be entitled to 75% of Rs.1,60,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand) only. In the category of deficiency of service and mental agony, the amount is reduced to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only and we feel that it is not required to interfere with the quantum of the cost of litigation. After calculating the said amount, the insurance company is directed to pay the amount within 45 days, failing which, it will carry 10% interest per annum.

     32. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed.