Haryana

StateCommission

A/886/2015

UIIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANTRO DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

PAUL S SAINI

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.886 of 2015  

Date of Institution: 30.09.2015 and 14.10.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 27.04.2017

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office SCO 123-124, Sector 17 B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney Smt.Sunita  Sharma, Dy. Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Santro Devi widow of Ram Chander, R/o Village Butana Kundu, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri P.S.Saini, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Shri P.K.Rohilla, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by complainant that her son purchased an EON Dlite BS0IV (PHW) car  from M/s Malwa Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kundli on 22.05.2012. Temporary number of car was allotted as HR-99- 1746. The vehicle was got insured with opposite party (O.P.) No.1, valid from 22.05.2012 to 21.05.2013.  On 11.07.2012 car met with an accident because ‘Neelgai’ (blue Bull)  came in front of his car and he lost control over it. He suffered multiple injuries on his body and was declared dead by Medical Officer (M.O.). Information was given to the O.Ps. regarding incident. Claim was submitted with O.Ps., but, was rejected on 14.12.2013 on the ground that vehicle was without registration.

2.      O.P. Nos.1 and 2 alleged that Ranbir was driving vehicle in at a very high spped and in zig zag manner without observing traffic rules. He could not control his vehicle and thus caused alleged accident. The story of blue bull was false and fictitious and was created by complainant to get compensation.  Ranbir Singh was not holding any valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The complainant neither gave information nor fulfilled requisite formalities. On the date of accident, vehicle was without registration. Section 44 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “M.V.Act”) did not permit use of motor vehicle without registration. Temporary registration certificate expired on 21.06.2012, whereas alleged accident took place on 11.07.2012. Thus there was no deficiency in service on their part.  She was not entitled for compensation as prayed for.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, concealing true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint  vide impugned order dated  25.08.2015 and and directed as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to deduct 10% from the IDV of the vehicle and to pay the remaining amount to the complainant. The respondents are further directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that  compensation cannot be denied due to delay in information as per instruction issued by IRDA even if vehicle was without registration.  So learned District Forum rightly accepted his complaint.

7.      Learned counsel for the opposite party-appellant vehemently argued that she is not entitled for compensation as temporary registration certificate had expired on 21.06.2012, whereas the accident took place on 11.07.2012.  As per Section 44 of M.V.Act, complainant violated terms and conditions of insurance policy. He placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others  2014 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 272.

8.      We do agree with the arguments addressed by the appellants counsel. Complainant has miserably failed to show that the vehicle was having any type of registration before accident.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed this fact in detail which is as under:-

“11.   We have perused the order passed by the three  forums. The only issue for consideration is, as to whether the National Commission is correct in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation for damages in respect of the vehicle when admittedly the vehicle was being driven on the date of accident without any valid registration as contemplated under the provisions of section 39 and Section 43 of Motor Vehicles Act.  For better appreciation, Section 39 and Section 43 which are relevant are quoted herein below:-

“39.Necessity for registration. No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not 601 been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

43. Temporary registration. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark.

(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:

Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a 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 any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.

(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner.

12.    A bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

13.    However, the 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 a 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.”

9.      In the present case the temporary registration expired on 21.06.2012 and accident took place on 11.07.2012.  Complainant did not apply for permanent registration.  In this way the vehicle was being driven without any type of registration on the date of accident and he is not entitled for any compensation keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case.  The learned District Forum passed impugned order by ignoring all these aspects and same cannot be sustained.

10.    For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order  dated 25.08.2015 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.

 

May 2nd, 2017            Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.