Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Ambala Belting House And Ors on 6 May, 2022
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
CWP-1995-2016 1
207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1995 of 2016
Date of Decision: 06.05.2022
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
......Petitioner
Vs
AMBALA BELTING HOUSE AND ORS.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)
[1]. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Ambala/respondent No.2 being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
[2]. Respondent No.1 had purchased a vehicle on 08.01.2011 for personal necessity and got the same insured from the petitioner on the same day. As per certificate of insurance-cum-policy schedule, insurance was valid from 09.01.2011, 4.00 P.M. to midnight of 08.01.2012. The cover note was issued by the petitioner showing payment of requisite 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2022 02:49:55 ::: CWP-1995-2016 2 premium against the insured value of Rs.5,97,550/-. Temporary certificate of registration was issued. The vehicle was required to be permanently registered on the due date after completion of all the necessary formalities.
[3]. The vehicle in question was never permanently registered and the same was stolen in the intervening night of 5/6th May 2011. Respondent No.2 accepted the claim of respondent No.1 thereby awarding an amount of Rs.5,97,550/- in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner with cost(s) of Rs.5,000/- towards unnecessary harassment and compensation.
[4]. Notice of motion was issued on 01.02.2016 by passing the following order:-
"Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has purchased the vehicle on 08.01.2011 and got it insured with the petitioner on the same day. The temporary number of the vehicle had survived upto 07.02.2011, whereas the vehicle was stolen on 05.05.2011. It is submitted that neither respondent No.1 applied in time for the purpose of permanent registration of the vehicle nor there is any such evidence on record. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & ors., 2014(4) CPJ 11, in which it has been held that if the vehicle
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2022 02:49:56 ::: CWP-1995-2016 3 is not registered after the expiry of temporary number, then the Insurance Company would not be liable in case of any accident or theft.
Notice of motion to respondent No.1. for 08.03.2016.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed."
[5]. Thereafter, Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and sought time to address arguments on merits on 13.02.2017. Thereafter the case was adjourned on number of occasions. Interim order remained in operation throughout.
[6]. On 29.03.2022, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and following order was passed by this Court:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 had purchased the vehicle in question on 08.01.2011 and got the same insured with the petitioner on the same day. The temporary number of the vehicle was valid upto 07.02.2011 and thereafter, it was stolen on 05.05.2011. Respondent No.1 never applied for getting the permanent registration number, nor was any such evidence led before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Notice of motion was issued on 01.02.2016 on the basis of reliance made by learned counsel for the petitioner to Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, 2014(4) 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2022 02:49:56 ::: CWP-1995-2016 4 CPJ 11, in which, it has been held that if the vehicle is not registered after the expiry of temporary number, then the insurance company is not liable in case of theft of vehicle. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon para No.11 of Civil Appeal No.5887 of 2021 titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara decided on 30.09.2021, wherein the same view has been reiterated.
Since there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1, therefore, in the interest of justice, adjourned to 06.05.2022.
No further adjournment shall be granted. Office of Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for respondent No.1 be informed about enlisting of the case."
[7]. As per office report, office of Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate has been duly informed through email. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1.
[8]. Faced with the situation, this Court is left with no option, but to hear the arguments on merits.
[9]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 had purchased the vehicle in question on 08.01.2011 and got the same insured with the petitioner- Insurance Company on the same day. Temporary registration number of the vehicle was issued and the same was valid upto 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2022 02:49:56 ::: CWP-1995-2016 5 07.02.2011. The vehicle in question was stolen in the intervening night of 5/6th May 2011. Respondent No.1 has not applied for getting permanent registration number of the vehicle. No evidence was led to this effect before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
[10]. Learned counsel relies upon Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, 2014(4) CPJ 11 to contend that if the vehicle is not registered after expiry of temporary registration period, then the Insurance Company would not be liable to indemnify any claim of the insured. In this way, the claim on account of theft of vehicle is not to be answered by the petitioner.
[11]. Learned counsel further relies upon para no.11 of Civil Appeal No.5887 of 2021 titled 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, decided on 30.09.2021, wherein the ratio of Narinder Singh's case (supra) was reiterated and it was held that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration number granted by the competent authority in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the provision in terms of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act. [12]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to accept this petition. The same is allowed.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2022 02:49:56 ::: CWP-1995-2016 6 Impugned order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Ambala is set aside. Normal consequences to follow.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
May 06, 2022 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2022 02:49:56 :::