Present:   

          For the appellant : Sh. Amaninder Preet, Advocate

          For respondents   :Sh. D.P.Gupta, Advocate

MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR,MEMBER:-

             This appeal has been preferred  by the appellant/ complainant against the order dated 20.06.2013 passed  by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Faridkot (in short “District Forum”), vide which complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,( In short," the Act")  for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay the full insurance claim and Rs.50,000/-, as compensation  and Rs.11,000/-, as litigation expenses, was dismissed.

2.            As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant purchased one car make Tata, Indigo, CSLS Engine No.475IDTI4FYYP31067 Chassis No.MAT607146BPF48235 from opposite party no.4 for Rs.4,80,113/-, vide invoice no.0011120674.  Opposite party no.4 arranged car loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from opposite party no.3 and the remaining price of the car was paid by complainant to  opposite party no.4 in cash at the time of purchase of the car. It also got the car  insured with Opposite parties no.1&2 for the period 08.08.2011 to 07.08.2012. He had gone to Bathinda, along with his family members on 02.10.2011 for shopping and parked his above said car in front of Millal Mall Bathinda, at 6.30 P.M. after fully locking it. After shopping, when he came out of the Mall, the car was not there. He searched the same for one day. When he failed to find out, he lodged FIR no.198 dated 04.10.2011 under section 379 IPC at P.S.Kotwali, Bathinda. Immediately after the theft, he also informed opposite parties no.1&2. He submitted all the required documents to opposite party no.2 who advised him to get the car registered with Transport Authority, so that the claim could be released. After that, he got registered the car with the office of DTO, Faridkot and got registration no.PB-04-R-2567. The copy of RC was also submitted to opposite party no.2. In spite of that, his genuine claim was repudiated by opposite parties no.1&2.  Ultimately, he filed the complaint for issuance of the above said directions to the opposite parties.

3.           Upon notice, opposite parties no. 1 and 2 filed joint written reply before the District Forum admitting therein that the car was got insured with opposite party no.1 by the complainant. While denying other averments made in the complaint, they pleaded that the car was left totally unattended in open place, which facilitated the theft. It was not parked in authorized parking place only to save the money. The matter was reported to police at belated stage. The intimation regarding the alleged theft was, given to them on 21.03.2012 at their office, Bathinda, whereas the theft took place on 02.10.2011 i.e after the period of more than 5 months and 19 days, thereby preventing them to inspect the spot immediately and gather first hand information regarding the alleged theft. That was clear violation of policy conditions. He also failed to submit the required claim papers to them. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was got registered at much belated stage. Therefore, the claim and present complaint are not maintainable. Due compliance of terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance was a pre-condition for payment of claim, which the complainant miserably failed to comply. After receiving the intimation regarding the alleged loss, an independent investigator was appointed, who submitted his report on 25.06.2012 and independent surveyor submitted his report regarding value of the stolen vehicle on 28.08.2012. Vehicular documents submitted by the complainant were  got verified but he never completed the required paper formality, despite repeated requests. He has not complied with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the vehicle in question was being plied by him without proper registration certificate in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The car in question was got registered with the registering authority for the first time on 17.06.2012. Even the tax was paid on 01.06.2012. The complainant has concealed and suppressed true and material facts and has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. Moreover, complicated questions of law and facts are involved which requires thorough enquiry and investigation and recording of the evidence at length and as such, the complainant is required to be relegated to the Civil Court.  The present complaint is pre-mature, as the claim has neither been accepted nor declined due to the unaccommodating attitude of the complaint. There is no deficiency on their parts. They prayed for dismissal of complaint; being false, frivolous and vexatious

4.            Opposite party no.3 failed to appear before the District Forum, despite service of notice. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 12.03.2013.

5.            Opposite party no.4 filed separate written reply before the District Forum and took the preliminary objection that complainant has dragged it into a false litigation, just to grab the money and defame the name, fame and its market value. Complainant filed the present complaint against it on frivolous grounds, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. It admitted that the vehicle was purchased from it but pleaded that it had no concern with alleged theft and insurance of the car. There was no deficiency in service on its part. The complainant was not entitled for any compensation and litigation cost from it. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed by it.

6.            The parties  produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing Ld. Counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

7.            We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record of the District Forum.

8.           It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is very much apparent from Annexure A-2 annexed with the grounds of appeal that the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given to the opposite parties on 05.10.2011. The District Forum wrongly concluded that intimation regarding the theft was given with Insurance Company on 21.03.2012 after 5 months and 19 days. He also submitted that the theft was reported to the police on 02.10.2011 itself immediately after the theft and the delay, if any, in recording the FIR was on the part of the police.

9.            On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant did not give any intimation to the opposite party/insurance company immediately after the theft. There was no registration at the time of theft, which is not only violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but also violation of terms and conditions of policy. There was no deficiency in service on their part. The dismissal of complaint was prayed by them.

10.         The complainant pleaded in the complaint that after the theft he immediately informed the opposite parties regarding the same. In support of his averments, he produced on record claim details as Annexure A-2 (Document was annexed with the grounds of appeal with the permission of this Commission). The relevant part is reproduced as under :-

  "Claim Information

               Claim Number: 20900311143200009519

               Loss Date: 2/10/2011 19:30  00.00 24 Hrs.

               Claim Intimation Date: 05/10/2011 16:17

               Intimated by Customer"

From that document, it is very much clear that  the intimation was given to opposite parties on 5.10.2011. The complainant has also placed on record photo copy of register, maintained at DCR i.e. District Control Room wherein details of complaints received on telephone were also recorded, reading of which shows that on 02.10.2011, at S.No.2, it is mentioned that Mora Singh, Munshi, Kotwali, informed telephonically to SI Parmjeet Singh that  "Indica Car, bearing no.PB-10DD-5788 has been stolen from marriage palace." The same vehicle number was also recorded in FIR (Ex.C-6). Thus, there was no delay in giving intimation regarding theft of the vehicle to the police by the complainant.

11.         There was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which makes the registration of the vehicle mandatory. According, to that Section, no person can drive any vehicle and no owner of the vehicle can 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 that Act. The vehicle was never got registered by the complainant after the expiry of one month of the issuance of temporary registration certificate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal no. 8463 of 2014 decided on 04.09.2014 (Narender Singh Vs. New India Insurance Company), has held as under:-

"Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.01.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 02.02.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.01.2006, 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 policy contract."

12.         No doubt, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rendered in the case of the accident and not in case of theft. However, from the perusal of Section 39, which deals with necessity for registration of the vehicle, and Section 43, which deals with temporary registration of the vehicle, it becomes clear that the ratio of this judgment is to be applied even in the cases of theft of vehicles. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it mandatory to get the vehicle registered in accordance with Chapter-IV, before driving the same in any public place or in any other place and the registration mark is required to be displayed on the vehicle in the prescribed manner. Section 43 deals with the Temporary Registration of the vehicle, which is to be valid for a period not exceeding one month, and is renewable. Sub Section (2) thereof deals with the validity of the temporary registration and the proviso appended to it, is very relevant and the same is reproduced below:-

“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.”

When the renewal of the temporary registration number is mandatory for a vehicle, which was never taken on the road and the body thereof is to be prepared before taking the same on the road, it becomes very much clear that even when the vehicle is not taken on the road, even then temporary registration certificate is required, if not a permanent registration certificate. If at the time of theft, there is no such registration; the insurance company can well escape its liability to pay the insurance amount, by repudiating the claim on that ground. If there is any doubt regarding the application of this judgment in cases of theft, the same is removed by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2015) CPJ 220 (Saleena Rani  Vs.  United India Insurance Company Ltd.  and Anr.).  In that case, Saleena Rani, complainant got her car insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company.  Temporary registration number was issued, which was valid from 09.06.2011 to 08.07.2011. On 05.05.2012,  the car was taken to Delhi by her husband and was parked in front of guest house. On the next day, the car was found missing from that place. The claim was lodged by the complainant, which was repudiated by the insurance company, on the ground that the car in question was not registered with any Registering Authority on the date of theft.  After interpreting the above said Sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission, that where the car had been used by the complainant as also by her husband, wholly and completely in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39, the insurance company could have repudiated the claim on that ground legally and validly. The Hon’ble National Commission relied upon Narinder Singh’s case (supra), while recording that finding.

13.         In the present case also the insured vehicle was not registered at the time of theft. The complainant was plying his vehicle without Registration Certificate in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act.  As such complainant not only violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act but also committed fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy contract.  Accordingly, OP could have repudiated the claim of the complainant on that ground.

14.         In view of the above discussion, we conclude that there is no merit in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed. However, no order is made as to cost.

15.         The arguments in this case were heard on 19 .12.2014 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

16.         The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases

   February        20  , 2015