1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58 1 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 18.07.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.333 of 2017, in which order dated 16.01.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Shivpuri (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 04 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 18.07.2022 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant in the said FA No. 333 of 2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondent was OP before the District Forum in CC no. 04 of 2015.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent on 29.09.2022. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 08.08.2023 ( Petitioner) and 04.12.2023 ( Respondent) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that Complainant had insured his vehicle Bolero with the OP and the said vehicle was registered as Taxi and was being used by the Complainant for carrying passengers on payment.  On 09.01.2013, during the currency of the insurance policy, the vehicle was got stolen. Claim was lodged with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated by the OP on the ground that vehicle was not having permit as required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and fitness as required under section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.   Being aggrieved, the complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 16.011.2017 allowed the Complaint.  Being aggrieved, the OP filed an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 18.07.2022 allowed the Appeal of the OP.  Therefore, Complainant is before the Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 18.07.2022of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The State Commission erred in returning a findings against the petitioner on the ground that insured vehicle was not having a fitness certificate and valid permit.

2. The incident of theft was immediately reported to the concerned police station and on 09.01.2013 itself the information of theft was given to the insurance company. The necessary documents were also furnished to the insurance company for settlement of claim.

3. Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act though provides for necessity of having a fitness certificate for a vehicle registered as commercial vehicle but when read in conjunction with section 39 of the Act, it transpires that valid registration permits a vehicle to be driven in any public place or any other place if registration has not been suspended or cancelled by the transport authority.

4. Not having a permit for the insured vehicle cannot be said to be a fundamental breach as the said vehicle was not being driven at the time of theft, rather it was stolen from outside the house of the petitioner parked in a locked condition. The present case is a case of theft leading to lodging of an own damage and in-fact it is not a case of third party claim.  In case of theft of vehicle, breach of the policy terms and conditions is not germane.

5. The Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance  Co. Ltd. ( Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2010) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal ( Civil Appeal No. 3409 of 2008).

6. The vehicle was lying idle in front of the house of the Petitioner and same was not being used as a taxi, therefore, the permit was not necessary when the vehicle was not being used as a taxi and as such, the registration cannot be held to be invalid for want of permit.

7. The respondent did not investigate the contention of the petitioner that at the time of theft of the insured vehicle, the same was not being used as a taxi.

8. State Commission erred in placing mis-conceived reliance on two Supreme Court judgments, United India Insurance Company Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara 4 ( 2021) CPJ 10 ( SC) and Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2014 (9) SCC 324 as in the case of Sushil Kumar Godara, it relates to theft of insured vehicle but there was no registration of vehicle.  In the case of Narinder Singh, it related to accident of insured vehicle and driver was  not having driving licence and there was no registration. 

9. The judgments considered by the State Commission are either related to accident or vehicle having no registration.

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1     Counsel for the Petitioner repeated the points which are stated in para 5, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here.

6.2.    Respondent – Insurance Company on the other hand contended that the State Commission rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Godara ( supra).  In the present case, at the time of loss / theft, the insured vehicle was registered as taxi but was not having permit as required under section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act and fitness certificate as required  under section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act.  Thus, there is clear violation of statutory provisions of the terms and conditions of the policy.   Further, State Commission also rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh ( Supra).  Further, it is argued that there is no provision which mandates that parked vehicle need not required the fitness certificate and the permit.  The insured vehicle was being used in the contravention of terms and conditions of the policy.  Counsel for the Respondent placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court / High Court :

  (i)    United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2021

  (ii)   Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. And Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014.

  (iii)  Pareed Pilat Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., MACA No. 2030 of 2015

  (iv)  Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 432 of 2022.

  (v)    Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5928 of 2022.

  (vi)  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal ( 2003) 8 SCC 644

  (vii)  Polymat India ( P) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 2005) 9 SCC 174

  (viii)  Export Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons ( 2014) 1 SCC 686

9. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan ( 1999) 6 SCC 451
10. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. The Chief Electoral Officer

7.       In United India Insurance Co. vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, Civil Appeal No. 5887/2021, decided on 30.09.2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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.” In this case, the temporary registration of vehicle had expired on the date of incident, the respondent had not applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration, the vehicle was not only driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight, and got stolen there. Hon’ble Court, applying the ratio of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 324 observed that this case was in the context of an accident is immaterial. 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 a place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. In Narinder Singh (Supra) the claim was in the context of an accident, involving a vehicle, the temporary registration of which had expired. The Hon’ble Court held that the insurer was not liable

8.       In Naveen Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP/250/2019, decided on 26.11.2015, NCDRC in a reference, held as follows:-

"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".

9.       In the instant case, the claim  has been repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that vehicle was not having permit as required under section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and fitness as required under section 56 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  The question arises is whether driving the vehicle on public road without valid permit and fitness certificate is violation of Motor Vehicle Act and whether plying vehicle on road without required permit and fitness certificate constitute an offence punishable under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on the same footing as driving without a valid registration, either temporary or permanent , which are in clear violation of Section 39 and 192 of Motor Vehicle Act.  Section 66 and 56 of Motor Vehicle Act are reproduced below:

66. Necessity for permits. - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.

                   xxxx

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.

10.     From the above, it is clear that under section 56, if the transport vehicle is not having a certificate of fitness, it shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39.  Hence, this alone becomes a valid ground for Insurance Company to repudiate the claim.  Further under section 66, it is mandatory for a transport vehicle to ply on road to have a valid permit.  The Complainant has  not placed on record any material to show that his vehicle is covered under any of  the exclusions under sub-section 3 of Section 66.  Hence, in our considered view, plying the transport vehicle on road without a valid permit and fitness certificate is in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act entitling the Insurance to repudiate the claim as these constitute fundamental breach of conditions of the policy.  The fact that vehicle was not on the road at the time it was stolen will not  make a difference in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Sushil Kumar Godara ( supra), Narinder Singh ( supra ) and judgment of this Commission in Naveen Kumar ( supra ).

11.     In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with a well-reasoned order of the State Commission.  As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” We find no illegality of material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is  upheld.  Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.

12.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.