CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/690

Instituted on : 30.12.2013

Manager,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri,

Raipur (C.G.)                                                                                    …    Appellant

       Vs.

1.  Ramesh Patel, S/o Late Parakhnath Patel, Aged 50 years,

R/o : Village Naimed, Thana – Jangla,

Post - Naimed,  Tahsil Bijapur, Dist. Bijapur (C.G.)

2.  Manager, Silver Line Automobiles,

NH 16, Geedam Road, Parpa,

Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)                                        ..…Respondents

PRESENT :

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER

HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR,MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE  PARTIES :

Shri Manoj Prasad,  for appellant.

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent No.1.

None for the respondent No.2.

ORDER

DATED : 19/02/2015

PER :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.12.2013  passed by  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.13/10.  By the impugned order, the complaint,   has been partly allowed and the appellant (O.P.No.1) has been directed to pay within 30 days from the date of order a sum of Rs.6,06,793/- to the  respondent No.1 (complainant)  along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 25.07.2013 till date of payment.  The appellant (O.P.No.1) has further been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and advocate fee to the respondent No.1 (complainant).

2.         As per the allegations  as made in the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 (complainant) he was the owner of a vehicle bearing chassis no.CSM24085 and engine no.CUM75161, which was purchased by him from respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and the same was insured with the appellant (O.P.No.1) for the period from 17.01.2013 to 16.01.2014.  It was also pleaded that on 07.02.2013 the vehicle was being driven by driver Mr. Bhajan Singh and while coming back from Jagdalpur at about 11.00 P.M. the vehicle turned turtle  and got badly damaged .  It was also pleaded that  intimation about the accident was given to the concerned police station on 21.02.2013 and the vehicle was registered temporarily on 18.02.2013.  It was also pleaded that the intimation about the accident given through  telephone  by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) to the appellant (O.P.No.1) and Surveyor was appointed by the  appellant (O.P.No.1) but the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant) has been repudiated vide letter dated 25.07.2013.  Therefore, the respondent No.1 (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.

3.         The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) appeared before the District Forum and filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made by the respondent No.1 (complainant) and  pleaded that the vehicle in question was being used without registration and intimation regarding  the incident was not given in time as per the policy terms and conditions. 

4.         After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay compensation to the respondent No.1 (complainant) as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

5.         The respondent No.1 (complainant)  filed documents.   Document No.1 is Sale Certificate, Document No.2 is  Invoice issued by Silver Line Automobiles,  Document No.3 is Motor Vehicle Cover Note, Document No.4 is Transcript of Proposal for Private Car – Package Policy, Document No.5 is Certificate Cum Policy Schedule, Document No.6 is copy of First Information Report, Document No.7 is Temporary Registration Certificate, document No.8 is  letter dated 25.07.2013 sent by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. to the respondent No.1 (complainant).

6.         Shri Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.No.1) has argued that  the  impugned order passed by the District Forum, is perverse and is not sustainable in  law.  The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts brought on record and has miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of the defining the "deficiency in service" by overlooking the facts of the case.      The vehicle in question was not registered and it was being used in contravention of provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and temporary registration certificate has been obtained after the accident.    He further argued that learned District Forum has overlooked the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The intimation regarding the  accident was not given immediately by the respondent No.1 (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.No.1) and thus the respondent No.1 (complainant) has violated the terms  and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation from the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the  respondent No.1 (complainant).  He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., IV (2014) CPJ 11 (SC).

7.         Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (complainant) has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum and submitted that it does not call for any interference by this Commission.  He further argued that respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2) assured the respondent No.1 (complainant)  to get the vehicle in question registered and  after registration, the Certificate of Registration will be provided to the respondent No.1 (complainant). The accident took place on 07.02.2013 and thereafter the respondent No.1 (complainant) met with the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and asked him for providing Certificate of Registration.  The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) immediately got the vehicle termporarily registered and obtained Temporary Registration Certificate and gave the same to the respondent No.1 (complainant), therefore, the respondent No.1 (complainant) did not violate any terms and conditions of the policy.  Learned District Forum has rightly awarded compensation to the respondent No.1 (complainant).  The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.No.1) be dismissed.

8.         Before us none appeared for the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2)  on 31.01.2015  when the case is fixed for final hearing, in spite of service of notice by regd. A/D post.

9.         We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.

10.       It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant (O.P.No.1) for the period from 17.01.2013 to 16.01.2014.

11.       Provisions of Section 39 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 runs     thus :-

"39.     Necessity for registration. – No person shall drive any motor vehicle and  no owner or 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."

12.       Provisions of Section 43 (1) & (2) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 run thus :-

"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."

13.       Provisions of Section 56 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 runs   thus :-

"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 authorised testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder:

               Provided that  where the prescribed authority or the authorised 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 "authorised 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 by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages.

(3)        Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a 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.

(5)        A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective, be valid throughout India."

14.       The incident took place on 07.02.2013 and the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant (O.P.No.1) for the period from 17.01.2013 to 16.01.2014.  It appears that when   the accident occurred, the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant (O.P.No.1) .  The respondent No.1 (complainant) filed  document No.6 i.e. First Information Report.  In the First Information Report, it is mentioned that the accident took place on 07.02.2013 and offence was registered under Section 279 & 337 IPC on  21.02.2013.  The respondent No.1 (complainant) also filed document No.7 i.e. Temporary Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question.

15.       From bare perusal of  Temporary Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question, it appears that the said Certificate was issued on 18.02.2013.

16.       In Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others (Supra), Hon'ble  Supreme Court has observed thus :-

        "14.         Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of 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 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 the  policy contract."

        15.           In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission and the National Commission."

17.       In Bhagwat vs. The United India Insurance Company Limited, IV (2014) CPJ 698 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that petitioner  never applied before Regional Transport Officer for getting permanent registration of the vehicle  and for failure to meet statutory requirement regarding registration of the vehicle, the complainant was not entitled to get claim even on non-standard basis. 

18.         In Din Dayal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. I (2013) CPJ 10 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-

        "5.           These arguments do not sound very convinced.  Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of law to drive the vehicle on any place or any other place.  In support of his case, the State Commission has placed reliance upon the order of this Commission in the case of Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, I (2012) CPJ 559. Consequently, there was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

19.       In Niranjan Kumar Yadav vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2011)  CPJ 64 (NC),  Hon'ble National Commission has observed      thus :-

"4................ On the contention of the present revision petitioner that the registration was already applied for  and was pending with the registering authority, the State Commission has made the following categorical observations :-

"If permanent registration cannot be done for the delay of the office of the registering authority then it must have temporary registration.  Legality is the essence  of all agreement.  If it is violative of law, any contract or agreement is bound to fail, may  there be otherwise expressed provision in the terms and condition of the agreement or not.  The appellant failed to show any temporary registration number.  He also failed to show any receipt of the application for registration to prove that he had applied for registration before the mishap."

            5.                     In view of this observation of the State Commission, the  claim of the Revision Petitioner/Complainant that the registration  was pending before the Registering Authority,  looses all credibility."

20.       According to the respondent No.1 (complainant),  he paid amount to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) for  getting the vehicle in question registered with R.T.O. and to obtaining Certificate of Registration and the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) assured him that  he get the vehicle registered  and after registration, the documents will be provided to the respondent No.1 (complainant). The above contention of the respondent No.1 (complainant) is not acceptable.  From bare perusal of  provisions of Sections  39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is clear that it is the duty casted upon the  owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle registered.  In the instant case, the respondent No.1 (complainant) could not  obtain Certificate of Registration  from the concerned R.T.O.

21        Since at the time of   the accident, the vehicle in question was not registered with the concerned R.T.O. and the  respondent No.1 (complainant) was not holding Certificate of Registration and the vehicle in question was being used on the road without Certificate of Registration, which is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the  appellant (O.P.No.1) is not liable to pay compensation to the respondent No.1 (complainant).

22.       In the instant case, the intimation regarding the accident was not  given by the respondent No.1 (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.No.1) immediately and the First Information Report was lodged belatedly  and intimation regarding the incident was also given to the appellant (O.P.No.1) at a belated stage, therefore we find that the respondent (complainant) has violated the term of the insurance policy, which is fundamental breach of policy, therefore, the appellant (O.P.No.1) has  a right to  repudiate the claim of the respondent (complainant) and the appellant (O.P.No.1) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant).  The respondent No.1 (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.No.1) even on non-standard basis.

23.       On the basis of  above discussions,  we find that the  finding recorded by the District Forum, is erroneous and  suffers from jurisdictional error and is not sustainable, hence the same is liable to be set aside.

24.       Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.No.1), is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.12.2013, passed by the District Forum, is set aside.  Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.             

(Justice R.S. Sharma)          (Ms. Heena Thakkar)           (D.K. Poddar)

         President                                  Member                             Member

                 /02/2015                                  /02/2015                            /02/2015