DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 206

 Instituted on:   26.04.2018

                                                                        Decided on  :   11.04.2023      

1. Ashok Kumar Singla aged about 41 years son of Sh. Sat Pal Singla, resident of Ward No.1, Lehragaga, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.                                            …. Complainant.                                      Versus

1.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: College Road, Sangrur, through its Divisional Manger.

2. MAX Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                           ….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri Sanjeev Goyal &Udit Goyal, Adv.              

For the Op no.1        : Shri Ashish Garg,Adv.

            For the Op no.2             : Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

ORDER BY

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

1. Complainant has alleged in the complaint that on 18.01.2017 the complainant purchased one Maruti Swift Car from Op number 2 and the same was got insured from Op number 1 on the same day vide policy number 98000031160304865195 valid from 18.01.2017 to 17.01.2018. The said policy was cashless and in the event of repair of the car the payment was directly paid by the insurance company to the repairer. No separate terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant by Op number 1. The Op number 1 declared the IDV of the vehicle as Rs. 612183/-. In the last week of March, 2017 the complainant handed over the amount to his agent for issuance of permanent registration number. Thereafter, on 31.03.2017 the agent called the complainant and told that registration number PB-13AW-5757 was allotted to him and also handed over the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. The agent also told that he could not deposit the remaining amount due to technical snag in the computer system and will deposit the same on the next working day, as there are holidays. The complainant immediately affixed registration number on his vehicle.  On the same day at about 8:30PM the said vehicle was met with an accident when driven by Sanjeev Kumar S/o Keemat Rai, near Village Chhajla, P.S. Chhajli and car was badly damaged in the said accident. An FIR number 33 dated 01.04.2017 u/s 304-A/279/427 IPC was registered at P.S, Chhajli. The intimation regarding the accident was immediately given to Op number 1 who appointed surveyor and on the instruction of the said surveyor the vehicle was taken to workshop of Op number 2 and prepared the estimate of Rs. 5,04,000/- for repairing the vehicle. Complainant supplied all the documents which were required for releasing the claim amount. Vide letter dated 07.09.2017 Op number 2 asked the complainant to deposit the payment of Rs. 2,55,101/- failing which they shall charge Rs. 200/- per day being marking charges. Complainant approached to Op number 2 and asked that the payment shall be made by the Op number 1 but Op number 2 informed the complainant that the Op number 1 has already repudiated the claim vide email dated 21.08.2017 on the ground that RC of vehicle was issued on 10.04.2017, Whereas, the accident has taken place on 31.03.2017. Complainant paid the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 28.09.2017 from his own pocket for releasing the vehicle. Thereafter, the Op number 1 issued the repudiation letter dated 03.10.2017 to the complainant. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op number 1 and lastly prayed that the Op number 1 may kindly be directed to release the claim amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of accident till realization. Further the Op number 1 may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 22,000/- as a litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Ops has appeared and filed written reply separately.In reply of Op number 1 pleaded that at the risk, car in question was insured with op.1 subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The sum insured was Rs. 6,12,183/- only. The surveyor Sh. Manjit Singh Kohli assessed the net loss of Rs. 2,52,939/-. The temporary registration number of the vehicle had expired on 19.03.2017, which was much prior to 31.03.2017, the date of alleged accident. After the expiry of temporary registration number the driver as well as the owner of the car were prohibited from the use of playing of the car at any public place. The owner had committed a serious breach of sections 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the rules made there under.The temporary registration certificate of the car in question expired on 19.03.2017. Till the date of accident of the car in question it has not been registered with the registering authority.The car in question was registered on 10.04.2017 (amended reply) and after examined the entire record carefully, the Op number 1 legally and rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the car in question was not validly registered at the time of alleged accident and informed the insured through letter dated 03.10.2017. The remaining allegations were denied by the op number 1 and prayed the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. In reply of Op number 2 pleaded that it is correct to be extent that the complainant has purchased one  Maruti Swift Car from Op number 2. It is denied for want of knowledge that the complainant got insured his car from Op number 1 or the policy was cashless or the IDV of the vehicle was 6,12,183/-. It is submitted that the complainant brought his car in damaged condition to the service centre of the Op number 2 on 26.04.2018 and asked the Op number 2 to prepare the estimate for repair of the car. It is admitted that the op number 2 repaired the car of the complainant and bill of repairing came to Rs. 2,65,101/-. It has also been admitted that Op number 2 vide letter dated 07.09.2017 asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 2,65,101/- as charges for repair. It is stated that the op number 2 informed the complainant that his claim has been rejected by op number 1. It is admitted that complainant made a payment of Rs. 2,55,000/- on 28.09.2017 and the op number 2 delivered fully repaired car to the complainant. It is submitted that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of op number 2 nor any deficiency in service rather the Op number 2 very efficiently repaired the car of the complainant and lastly prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs qua Op number 2.
4. In order to prove the complaint the complainant tendered into the evidence Ex.C-1 affidavit along with documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op.1 tendered into evidence Ex.Op-1/1 is the policy document inadvertently mentioned as an affidavit alongwith documents Ex-Op-1/2 to Op-1/15 and Ex.Op.1/16 self attested affidavit of Vipan Chowdhary DM of Op.1 and closed the evidence. Op.2 also tendered into evidence Ex.Op.2/1 affidavit and closed the evidence on behalf of Op.2.
5. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer?
6. The main issue for consideration of this Commission is that " weather the complainant is legally entitled to plied the car on public place after the expiry of temporary number?" It is not disputed that the complainant availed a service by way of insured his car from Op number 1 under Policy number 98000031160304865195 valid from 18.01.2017 to 17.01.2018 and paid the total premium of Rs. 22,501/-, which is Ex.Op.1/1.
7. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued on this issue that whether the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as mentioned in the repudiation letter which is Ex.C-4. Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant on the following grounds that "At the time of accident insured is not holding valid RC". The Ops taken the plea of serious breach of Section 39 and Section 56 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The aforesaid sections have two components. The first part is about the registration of the vehicle and the second part says about the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. In the present complaint, the complainant was having permanent registration bearing number PB13-AW-5757 and the same was being displayed in the prescribed manner on the vehicle at the time of accident. Even the same permanent registration was allotted to the complainant as per RC (Ex.Op1/6). The same registration number is duly mentioned in the FIR dated 01.04.2017 which is Ex. C-2. Therefore, there is no violation on the part of complainant. Had the vehicle was allotted another registration number except PB-13AW-5757, then the Ops can very well say that there is violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The main intent behind section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is only to penalize the person who is plying the vehicle without any permanent registration number. Since, the permanent registration number was already allotted to complainant for whom the complainant paid Rs. 10000/- the receipt of which is Ex. C-12. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the vehicle was not registered. On the receipt Ex. C-12, it is mentioned that fee for fancy number. The fancy number can be treated at par with temporary number. As per the rules and regulations the fancy number is valid for 30 days and the same can be treated as temporary number. Further, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the India in case of Narinder Singh is not applicable to the present case as in the said case the vehicle was plied without having any registration number. The facts of the said case are totally different from the present case.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op.1 contended that the car in question was insured with the Op.1 subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The sum insured was Rs. 6,12,183/- only. After receiving intimation the Op.1 appointed a surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the final loss. The said surveyor assessed Rs. 2,52,939/- as net loss. The temporary registration number of the vehicle had expired on 19.03.2017, which was much prior to 31.03.2017, the date of the alleged accident. After the expiry of the temporary registration the driver as well as the owner of the car was prohibited from the use of playing of the car at any public place. By using the car on a date of occurrence of the accident, i.e. 31.03.2017 the owner has committed a serious breach of section 39, 43(2) and section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the rules made there under. The complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- vide Ex. C-12 to reserve fancy number for his car and he applied for the permanent registration number on 06.04.2017 vide Ex. Op1/12 i.e. after the accident dated 31.03.2017. Therefore, at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven without valid registration certificate.
9. It is writ large on the file Ex.C-12 is an important document in which complainant has deposited the fee of Rs. 10,000/- for fancy number on 31.03.2017 at 15:06:02. From this angel we feel that mear deposited fee for fancy number by the complainant, the Law of Land did not permit him to plied the vehicle in any public place. As per Ex.C-2 First Information Report on page number 2, it is stated that the accident of vehicle bearing number PB-13AW-5757 was occurred on 31.03.2017 at 8:30PM. As per Ex.Op1/8 temporary certificate of registration was issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, North Zone, Transport Department, Mall Road, Delhi. In this temporary certificate of registration the owner's name was mentioned as Ashok Kumar Singla, Chassi number MA3FHEB1S00C20226 Engine number D13A2986761. Temporary registration certificate was issued  vide fee receipt number 550696 on 20.02.2017, Which was  valid upto 19.03.2017. From the perusal of this document it is specifically mentioned that the temporary registration number is valid for 30 days from the date of issue. As per Ex.Op1/9 verification conducted by Manjit Singh Kohli, Surveyor of Op.1 mentioned the RC detail that RC was issued on 10.04.2017 and tax Rs. 44,758/- was deposited on 06.04.2017 and the insured deposited tax after the date of accident i.e. 31.03.2017. Ex.Op1/10 is a receipt of fancy registration mark fee issued on 31.03.2017. Ex.Op1/11 is a form receipt of fees of Rs. 10,000/- . The receipt was issued on 31.03.2017 at 15:06:02 on the name of complainant. As per Ex. Op1/15 form 24 Motor Vehicle Register, Punjab Transport Department Authority, Sangrur the date of registration is 10.04.2017 and registration is valid upto 09.04.2032.
10. To trace out the veracity of truth section 39 and section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rule 42(a) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 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 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 canceled and the vehicle carries 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 the temporary registration mark.

(2) A registration made under the 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 chassis to which a body shall not be 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 registering authority or other prescribed authority, as case may be, may allow.

(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under  higher 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 by the owner.

42A The Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989- Fee for assigning of registration mark of choice: The registering authority, shall assign a registration mark of choice, to the owner of a Motor Vehicle, from amongst the registration marks, so specified by notification in the official gazette from time to time, on the basis of online auction to the highest bidder above the reserve fee so fixed and suggest to such terms and conditions, as may be specified by the Government in this behalf from time to time.

11. From the perusal of Section 39 and section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, No person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without a valid registration issued by the concerned authority. When the temporary registration issued by the concerned authority such registration shall be valid for a period of one month only. The proviso of Section 43 of motor vehicle act, 1988, the period of one month may be extend for 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 the work shop. Ex.Op1/10 and Ex.C-12 are the similar documents. According to the receipt of the fancy registration mark, the fee was deposited on 31.03.2017. Ex.Op1/11 is the fancy number fee receipt of Rs. 10,000/-. This Commission observed that the stand of the complainant that fancy number can be treated at par with temporary number and the fancy number is valid for 30 days is not a solid ground to prove the case of the complainant. This Commission is of the opinion as per the sprit of relevant sections that has already been discussed above there is no where mentioned that the fancy number treated as temporary number and a fancy number is valid for 30 days. This Commission has relied upon the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as "Narinder Singh Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr." (Civil Appeal number 8463 of 2014 decided on 04.09.2014) wherein it was held that where temporary registration expired on 11.01.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 02.02.2006 when vehicle was without any registration. Therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract. This appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Present case in hand, the temporary registration of the vehicle had expired on 19.03.2017 as per Ex.op1/8 the accident occurred on 31.03.2017 after the expiry of the temporary registration of the vehicle. At the time of accident the owner/complainant not having a valid registration number, which amounts to a violation of section 39 and section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. As per Ex.op.1/15 the complainant's vehicle was registered on 10.04.2017. It is well settled principal of law is that "Ignorance of Law is no excuse" It is the duty of the complainant to register his vehicle from the competent authority within the period of 30 days of the temporary registration certificate. Without having a valid registration certificate no one can have a legal right to plied a vehicle in a public place.
13. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the complaint in hand and the above discussed decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we dismiss the present complaint of the complainant.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
15. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.              

                                Announced.

                                11 April,2023.

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President