National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Divisional Manager, M/S. Oriental ... vs Sri Dundayya on 17 January, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 105 OF 2022 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2021 in Appeal No. 1262/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SRI DUNDAYYA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MS. AMREETA SWARUP, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : EX PARTE
Dated : 17 January 2024 ORDER
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 22.09.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No.1262 of 2017 in which order dated 22.03.2017 of Belagavi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 779/2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2021 of the State Commission.
2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No. 1262 of 2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in CC no. 779 of 2014.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 25.05.2022. Petitioner filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 17.10.2023. Due to non-appearance, despite service, Respondent was proceeded ex parte.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant was the owner of Maruti Swift Car which was insured with OP under the insurance policy valid from 30.04.2014 to 29.05.2015. The said vehicle carried a Temporary Registration valid upto 29.05.2014. On 06.06.2014, the vehicle met with an accident as a result of which, the car was completely damaged and case was registered under Crime No. 91 of 2014. OP's Surveyor conducted a Survey and estimated the repair of the said vehicle at Rs.7,99,,000/- but OP did not settle the matter. The Complainant got issued a legal notice on 08.09.2014 calling upon OP for settlement of the claim but OP replied the legal notice stating that they are not ready to settle the claim. The Complainant being aggrieved filed CC before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 22.03.2017 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 22.09.2021 allowed the Appeal. Therefore, the OP is before the Commission now in the present RP.
5. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 22.09.2021 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
Respondent is not entitled for insurance claim if the vehicle was not registered under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
District Forum has rightly held that complainant has contravened the terms and conditions of the policy as he failed to register the vehicle as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 within 30 days of expiry of temporary registration.
The vehicle of the respondent was not registered with the RTO and that from the date of expiry of the temporary registration of the vehicle on 29.05.2014 till the date of accident i.e. 06.06.2014, the said vehicle was not registered with the concerned RTO and was plying without registration.
The respondent never alleged or proved that he applied for permanent registration or sought extension of the temporary registration beyond 29.05.2014. The respondent failed to show that before or after 29.05.2014, when the period of temporary registration expired, the complainant being the owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 or made any application for extension of period. Using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy contract.
6. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Since respondent was proceeded ex parte, the case is being decided on merits on the basis of the revision petition, written submissions filed by the petitioner and other case records. Counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 5 argued that State Commission ignored the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. 2014 ( 9) SCC 324) wherein it is held that if the vehicle in question has no registration then this constitutes a fundamental breach of the policy, entitling the insurer to repudiate the claim. The present case is, therefore, squarely covered under this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2021. Counsel also relied on the judgment of this Commission in Naveen Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , wherein it was held that 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.
7. We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records. 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, and observed that:-
"11. A bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarified that the period of one month may be extended for such 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 a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.
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 punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract."
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. The present case is covered under the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited in the previous paras. Hence, we are in agreement of the contentions of the Petitioner herein. The State Commission went wrong in reversing a well-reasoned order of District Forum. State Commission has given no valid reasons to set aside the order of the District Forum. Order of the State Commission suffers from material irregularity and cannot be sustained. Hence, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the State Commission, and the same is hereby set aside. Order of District Forum dismissing the complaint is upheld. Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly.
10. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
................................................ DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER