For complainant           :             Sri S. K. Rath, Advocate.

For Opp. Party               :             Sri Sisir Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

                                                                                      -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the Lorry vide Regn. No.AP-29U-7494 and on 29.06.2016 at about 4.30 a.m. near Saibaba Temple, Wyra on Wyra-Thallada state Highway dashed to another stationed lorry bearing No.TS-5UA-6449 from back side.  It submitted that on 29.06.2016 at about 19.00 hours one Lalith Kumar Dalai intimated the fact to the local P.S. which was registered vide Cr No.132/16 and the vehicle was shifted to Vijayawada after giving intimation to the OP.  It is further submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP vide Policy No.345402/31/2017/941 but in spite of claim application and regular approaches, the OP did not pay any heed to settle the claim.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to settle the claim amount of Rs.4, 00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                         The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the insurance cover to the vehicle of the complainant.   It is contended that the complainant had submitted repair voucher of Rs.3, 49,770/- before the OP for consideration and the OP also had issued letters on 30.08.2016, 05.09.2016 and 21.12.2016 for supply of required documents for consideration of his claim but the complainant did not submit the documents.  Finally on 25.05.2017 the OP issued a registered letter requesting the complainant to sign on pre settlement discharge voucher as assessed by the final surveyor subject to production of necessary documents but the complainant did not cooperate.  The OP further contended that the claim could not be processed mainly for the reason that the registration certificate of the vehicle submitted to the OP was valid till 15.05.2016 but the accident took place on 29.06.2016.  The complainant did not cooperate with the OP in spite of several letters and requests.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         Both the parties filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case, Insurance Policy bearing No.345402/31/2017/941 valid from 22.05.2016 to 21.05.2017 granted by the OP in favour of vehicle bearing No.AP-29U-7494 of the complainant is an admitted fact.  It is also an admitted fact that that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 29.06.2016 on Wyra-Thallada State Highway by dashing with a stationed lorry No.TS-05UA-6449 from back side for which the front side of the insured lorry was damaged and the complainant had to incur a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs towards repair of the vehicle.  The case of the complainant is that he lodged claim by submitting necessary documents and bills/vouchers before the OP but the OP in spite of several reminders did not settle the claim.

5.                         The OP stated that he issued letters dt.26.07.2016, 30.08.2016, 01.09.2016 and 21.12.2016 to the complainant requesting him to submit required documents for settlement of his claim but the complainant did not pay any heed.  The OP further stated that finding no other way on 25.05.2017 they issued a registered letter intimating the fact of non submission of required documents and finally the OP sent a pre settlement discharge voucher basing upon the report of the final surveyor subject to submission of required valid documents but the complainant did not cooperate with the OP for settlement of claim.  The OP also further stated that the claim could not be settled due to non submission of required documents by the complainant and the OP specifically stated that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle submitted by the complainant was valid till 15.05.2016 but the accident took place on 29.06.2016 and the vouchers submitted by the complainant do not tally with the estimate/alleged damage and assessment.

6.                         We have perused the letters of the OP sent to the complainant requesting submission of relevant papers.  The OP has also sent a registered letter dt.25.05.2017 through which the OP has requested the complainant to submit RC/FC/Road Permit/Bills/Cash Memos of parts and labour for settlement of claim.  In the said letter, the OP has also sent a pre settlement vouchers of Rs.63, 000/- for signature of the complainant and to submit the same before the OP along with required documents for settlement and payment of claim.  It is seen that the complainant has submitted some documents before the OP but the OP stated that the RC was not valid at the time of accident and the bills/vouchers submitted by the complainant did not tally with the estimate and assessment.  Now a crucial issue arises here to decide, as to whether the RC of the insured vehicle was valid at the time of accident and whether in absence of valid RC at the time of accident there violates any provisions under M.V. Act, 1988 leading to non settlement of claim.

7.                         The OP has filed photo copy of Registration Certificate in respect of the insured vehicle in which it is written that date of registration of the vehicle is 13.06.2007 and the RC is valid from 13.06.2007 to 15.05.2016 whereas date of accident is 29.06.2016.  The complainant through his A/R has filed another photo copy of registration certificate in which it is written that the date of registration is 13.06.2007 and the certificate is valid from 13.06.2007 to 17.05.2017.  In the above circumstances it is very difficult to ascertain as to which document should we believe and to which not to believe and at this stage circumstantial evidence available on record is only way to decide the above issue.

8.                         In this case it is true that the date of registration is 13.06.2007.  The OP has filed photo copy of RC valid till 15.05.2016, either obtained from any source or submitted by the complainant before the OP on request.  The complainant had not filed any copy of RC at the time of filing of this case.  The OP in all its 5 letters had requested the complainant to file copy of RC along with other required documents.  Finally basing upon the report of the final surveyor, the OP has issued per settlement discharge voucher in favour of the complainant to sign for settlement of claim subject to production of required documents and according to the OP the complainant did not cooperate with them.  We do not understand the reason as to why the complainant did not cooperate with the OP for settlement of such claim.

9.                         The Learned A/R for the complainant on 18.02.2020 has filed a photo copy of RC in which it is stated that the certificate is valid from 13.06.2007 to 17.05.2017 to which the learned advocate for the OP vehemently challenged and submitted that if this certificate was with the complainant, why should not he submitted before the OP even after repeated requests through letters.  He further prayed this Commission to direct the complainant to file original RC issued by RTA, VSP and its money receipt in order to ascertain the truth whether the RC was renewed before the date of accident.  In this regard, the learned A/R for the complainant was asked to submit all the original documents in respect of renewal of RC and money receipt but it was not submitted.  The complainant also had not filed the renewed documents of RC at the time of filing of this case.  In absence of original RC and the payment details towards renewal of RC, it cannot be believed that before the date of accident, the RC was renewed and it was valid till 17.05.2017.  From the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the RC of the insured vehicle was not valid on the date of accident.

10.                       As per provision of Sec.39 of M. V. Act, 1988, no vehicle shall be driven in a public place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with relevant Section of M. V. Act and the use of vehicle without registration is also punishable u/s.192 of the said Act.  It is also no where provides that if the vehicle is registered subsequently even on payment of late fees, then the offences committed u/s.192 thereof would not be considered as an offence.  It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 272 (Narinder Singh Vrs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) that using a vehicle on road without registration is not only an offence punishable u/s.192 of the M. V. Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions   of the insurance policy.  Both the parties have relied a number of judgments of higher courts which need not be discussed as they relate to Learning License and this case bears an issue of regular license but the judgments are useful in order to know the factums of those cases.  Thus we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP while dealing with the complainant.

11.                       In view of the discussions held above we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs dismissal.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)