Haryana

StateCommission

A/325/2015

ROHAN MOTORS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJEEV AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

TARURAG GARG

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.325 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 08.04.2015

Date of Decision: 10.08.2016

 

Rohan Motors Ltd. Plot No.3695/35/14, Mathura Road, Sawan Bihar, Palwal.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Rajeev S/o Late Shri Prem Raj R/o  Village Ali Brahman Tehsil Hathin, Distt. Palwal.

2.      National Insurance Company through its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office: 5-C/1 and 2 BP Railway Road, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Ms.Salina Chalana, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that his father purchased maruti Van on 24.05.2012 from appellant/O.P.No.2.  Rs.10,500/- were also paid as of regular registration charges.  On 09.07.2012 the vehicle was stolen and FIR No.291 of 2012 was registered at P.S. Kosikalan. When the vehicle could not be traced he submitted claim with the insurance company, but, was repudiated on frivolous grounds.  O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.2,27,459/- as insured value besides compensation for mental harassment etc.

2.      O.P.No.1 alleged that the vehicle was stolen on 09.07.2012, but, FIR was got registered on 12.07.2012 in connivance with police officials just to get compensation.  Information was also not given to it immediately.  The complainant was plying vehicle without proper registration after expiry of temporary registration in violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In Shot “M.V.Act”), so he was not entitled for any compensation.  Objections about estopple, accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      In addition thereto O.P.No.2 alleged that it was only dealer and was not liable to pay any compensation to complainant.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (In short “District forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 23.02.2015 against the appellant-O.P.No.2 only and directed as under:-

“As such the present case is of contributory negligence,  hence the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party no.2 is directed to pay insured amount of Rs.2,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the  complaint till its realization.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P.No.2-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel  for the appellant vehemently argued that all the steps was taken by it to get the vehicle registered. The vehicle was passed by Secretary Regional Transport Authority Palwal (RTA) on 12.06.2012. Thereafter O.P. was to produce the vehicle before Motor Vehicle Inspector for physical verification, but, he did not produce the same.  In this way the negligence was on the part of the complainant only and it is not liable to pay any compensation.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant argued that it was the duty of the O.P.No.2/appellant to get the motor vehicle registered. When he did not get the same registered it amounts to deficiency in service and is liable to pay compensation. It is also argued that there is no violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and insurance company is also liable to pay compensation.  If he was driving vehicle without obtaining RC, as provided under section 39 of M.V.Act, it does not mean that insurance company can deny his claim.  So both the parties be directed to pay compensation.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in revision petition No.626 of 2013 titled as M/s Aroma Paints ltd vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, decided on  07.08.2013.

9.      Learned counsel for insurance company argued that if a vehicle is plied without proper registration, it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and complainant is not entitled for compensation. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court  expressed in civil appeal No.8463 of 2014 titled as Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd decided on 04.9.2014. 

10.    As per evidence available on the file it cannot be presumed that there was negligence on the part of the appellant/O.P.No.2.  From the perusal of documents available on the file it is clear that the relevant papers were submitted before RTA for the registration of the vehicle. Vide Ex.C-11 Secretary RTA directed to produce vehicle before Motor Vehicle Inspector for verification. When the vehicle was in possession of complainant he was to produce the same before concerned inspector.  Why he did not produce the vehicle is no-where explained by his father.  This direction was given on 12.06.2012 i.e. before the expiry of temporary registration.  O.P.No.2/appellant was only supposed to produce the documents before concerned authority  for registration.  As per affidavit dated 18.06.2012 father of complainant it is clear that all the formalities were completed for registration.  So learned District Forum wrongly came to conclusion that appellant failed to perform his part of contract and there was deficiency in service on the part of it.

11.    Now the question comes about liability of insurance company.  It may be mentioned here that complainant has no where requested to fasten liability upon insurance company also.  Even otherwise, it has been opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. case (supra) that if the vehicle  is not registered and is plied by the owner then he is not entitled for compensation. For ready reference, relevant portion of para No.11 and 12 of the said judgement wherein this fact is discussed are reproduced as under:-

“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 caries 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.

43.    Temporary registration- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark.

(2)     A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:

Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a 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 any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.

(3)     In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner.

12.    AS bare personal 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.”

It is further mentioned in the judgement that if after expiry of temporary registration vehicle was being plied the insured cannot ask for compensation.  When Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically opined qua this fact,  complainant cannot derive any benefit from the case law captioned as M/s Rama case Limited and Bhargav (supra). Arguments of counsel for complainant cannot be accepted.

12.    In view of our discussion, it is clear that the liability cannot be fastened upon on the insurance company as well as the dealer.  The findings of learned District Forum  are altogether against law and facts and cannot be sustained. Resultantly impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

 

August 10th, 2016  Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                       Member                                             Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                                     Addl.Bench             

S.K.