Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.         It was further stated that the complainants received a letter dated 26.08.2014 from Opposite Party No.1 (Annexure C-5) informing that the temporary registration had expired on 25.03.2014, road tax was paid on 5.5.2014 and the accident took place after the expiry of the temporary registration certificate. It was further informed vide the aforesaid letter, that since there was violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, they (complainants) should furnish comments. It was further stated that the complainants replied vide letter dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure C-6). It was further stated that vide letter dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure C-7), Opposite Party No.1 showed its inability to accept liability for damage to the vehicle. It was further stated that the letter of Opposite Party No.1 declining the claim was against law. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 failed to consider that there was no Policy condition intimating the complainants that if the vehicle was not registered, it would be a breach of contract of insurance and, on that ground, the claim could be declined. It was further stated that the complainants had already applied for the registration of vehicle within the validity period of temporary registration and the Inspecting Authority had also inspected the same for the purpose of registration on 18.3.2014, as was clear from Annexure C-2 and, as such, they (complainants) could not be blamed for not getting the vehicle registered in time.

8.         It was further stated that at the time, when the Insurance Policy was issued, the vehicle was under temporary registration and no permanent registration number was intimated to the Insurance Company till the time of accident. It was further stated that copy of the application for the registration of vehicle did not inspire confidence as the same was not stamped by the authorized signatory of the Registration Authority. It was further stated that the intimation with regard to the accident was received on 5.5.2014 and copy of the intimation log was annexed as Annexure R-2. It was further stated that the accident took place on 30.4.2014, whereas Opposite Party No.1 was informed on 5.5.2014 i.e. after a lapse of 5 days without any reasonable explanation for such delay, which was in violation of Condition No.l of the Policy. 

14. 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." 

24.       In view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., case (supra), either the complainants should have applied for extension of temporary registration of the vehicle or should have applied for permanent registration, before the expiry of the validity period of temporary registration of the same (vehicle), which they did not do. As discussed above, the vehicle, in question, was permanently registered on 5.5.2014. Thus, there was clear violation of Section 39 of Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Opposite Party No.1, rightly repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure R-10).  Therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service or indulgence into unfair trade practice, is attributable to the Opposite Parties.