Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Vikram Kanda on 1 September, 2016
In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's (supra) and law laid down by National Commission in Oriental Insurance versus Vikram Kanda (supra), wherein Narinder Singh case has been relied upon as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Section 39 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd And Ors on 4 September, 2014
8. The submission of counsel for the appellant before us is that the vehicle was not registered with the Registering Authority at the time of this incident of loss and hence the insured is not entitled to any claim for unregistered vehicle under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Counsel for OP no.3 now appellant relied upon law laid down by Apex Court in Narinder Singh versus New India Assurance Company Ltd and others, reported in 2013(3) CLT 82. We have examined this authority on the anvil of the factual matrix of the case. The complainant mainly relied upon Ex.C-3 certificate of registration to the effect that vehicle was not registered permanently with the Registering Authority on the date of loss. The vehicle must have been purchased when it was got insured by the complainant on 28.07.2015. The incident of fire took place by overtaking this vehicle on the intervening night 21/22 October 2015. The complainant has produced permanent registration certificate Ex.C-3 on the record showing that the vehicle was permanently registered on 26.10.2015 only. Section 43 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 deals with temporary registration certificate. Under Section 43 of Motor Vehicles Act, 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 period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the Registering Authority only in case where a temporary registering is granted in respect of chassis to which body has not been attached and same is detailed in a workshop. Onus is on the complainant to prove the circumstances were beyond his control being unforeseen, necessitating the extension of the temporary registration certificate. Temporary registration certificate has come to an end after one month as per mandate of Section 43 of Motor Vehicles Act in this case. Permanent registration certificate was issued on 26.10.2015 and loss of the vehicle took place on 21/22 October 2015, prior thereto. The vehicle was not registered with the Registering Authority on 21/22 October 2015 the date of this loss, because temporary registration certificate has already been expired, which was valid for one month period only under law.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The C.S.C. Headthe Iffco Tokio Genl. ... vs Shri Gaurav Bhargava on 28 October, 2015
The authorities cited by counsel for complainant against it in case Ifco Tokio Insurance Company Ltd versus Gaurav Bhargava reported in 2015(2) CPJ 196 by National Commission and Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd versus Paramjit Singh and others in F.A No. 917 of 2016 decided on 02.06.2017 passed by this Commission are entirely on different factual footings. In the cited authorities by complainant, it was held that on verification, it was found that the owner deposited tax for registration certificate within a period of one month on 06.12.2014, hence it was held that the owner of the vehicle was not at fault when the vehicle met with an accident and it was fault of the registering authority not to issue the certificate of registration. The factual situation of the case is on different footing. There is no such evidence of deposit of tax by the complainant on the date of loss of the vehicle due to fire. This authority relied upon by complainant is distinguishable from the fact situation of the case.
Future Generali India Insurance Co. ... vs Paramjit Singh on 2 June, 2017
The authorities cited by counsel for complainant against it in case Ifco Tokio Insurance Company Ltd versus Gaurav Bhargava reported in 2015(2) CPJ 196 by National Commission and Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd versus Paramjit Singh and others in F.A No. 917 of 2016 decided on 02.06.2017 passed by this Commission are entirely on different factual footings. In the cited authorities by complainant, it was held that on verification, it was found that the owner deposited tax for registration certificate within a period of one month on 06.12.2014, hence it was held that the owner of the vehicle was not at fault when the vehicle met with an accident and it was fault of the registering authority not to issue the certificate of registration. The factual situation of the case is on different footing. There is no such evidence of deposit of tax by the complainant on the date of loss of the vehicle due to fire. This authority relied upon by complainant is distinguishable from the fact situation of the case.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ram Diya on 28 August, 2015
Similarly, law laid down by National Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd versus Ram Diya reported in Revision Petition no. 3794 of 2013 decided on 28.04.2015 has been relied upon by counsel for the complainant.
1