Himachal Pradesh High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Rathi Devi & Others on 1 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2025:HHC:9828 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 22 of 2022 Date of decision: 1st April, 2025 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Rathi Devi & others ...Respondents.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. B.S. Thakur and Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocates, for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred against award dated 22nd October, 2021, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, in MAC Petition/Computer Registration No. 181 of 2016 titled Rathi Devi and others vs. Vinod Katoch and another.
2 The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved of fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation on the ground that at the time of occurrence of accident, in reference, on 13 th 2 ( 2025:HHC:9828 ) March, 2016, vehicle A/F i-20 involved in the accident was not registered either temporarily or permanently.
3 Admittedly, at the time of purchasing the vehicle on 9 th November, 2015 vehicle was temporarily registered as provided under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, it was either to be registered permanently under Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act or temporary registration was to be extended in terms of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. However, owner had neither applied either for extending the temporary registration or for permanent registration of vehicle. 4 The claimants in present case are third party. 5 Learned counsel for appellant submits that driving a vehicle on road without registration is a fundamental breach in terms and conditions of the Policy Contract. To substantiate his plea, he has referred judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others reported in (2014)9 SCC 324.
6 Learned counsel for owner submits that insurance was issued against the Chesis Number and Engine Number but not against temporary or permanent Registration Number, and therefore, non- registration either temporary or permanent is not a relevant factor to fasten or absolve the liability of payment of compensation to third party, and thus irrespective of registration of vehicle Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation without right to recover the same from owner. 3
( 2025:HHC:9828 ) 7 Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that in view of judgment of the Supreme Court, Insurance Company may be given right to recover, after payment of the compensation to the third party, in view of settled law, from the owner was driving the vehicle in fundamental breach of the Insurance Policy.
8 Learned counsel for Insurance Company has also referred the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kamal Kishore and others reported in 2019(3) Shim.LC 1626 wherein in similar circumstances, after relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation to the third party with right to recover the same from owner.
9 Para 12 of Narinder Singh's case is relevant in this regard, which is as under:-
"12. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the 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 any 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 4 ( 2025:HHC:9828 ) punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract."
10 Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly accepted the plea of owner that insurance was not with respect to the registration number but of the vehicle identifying the same through Engine Number and Chesis Number. 11 Plea of respondent/owner appears to be attractive, however, in view of specific findings returned by the Supreme Court, I am not able to accept the said plea.
12 Though Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has taken note of judgment passed in Kamal Kishore's case wherein judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case has also been referred, however, Tribunal has relied only upon para 4(f) of Kamal Kishore's judgment.
13 Though in Narinder Singh's case, claimant himself was owner of the vehicle, however, for the findings returned in para 12 of this judgment, declaring that plying the vehicle without registration is fundamental breach of policy and therefore, Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation, para 4(f) of Kamal Kishore's judgment is of no help to the owner. 14 Even the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Kamal Kishore's case, after taking into consideration various pronouncements 5 ( 2025:HHC:9828 ) of the Supreme Court with respect to third party claimant, has held that Insurance Company can be fastened liability to pay compensation to third party claimant but with right to recover the same from owner. 15 In view of above, impugned award is upheld except modification that Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount, which is ordered to be paid to third party claimant, from the owner.
Appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
1st April, 2025 (MS)