NARINDER SINGH.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

                    [2014] 9 S.C.R. 551


                 NARINDER SINGH.                                 A
                         v.
   NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal Nos.8463 of 2014)
                   SEPTEMBER 4, 2014
                                                                 B
  [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 39, 43 and 192 -
Accident of vehicle without registration - Temporary
registraUon had expired prior to date of accident - Claim for    C
compensation from insurer, under Consumer Protection Act
- Entitlement - Held: The complainant was not entitled to
compensation - The temporary registration had already
expired and temporary registration was neither extended nor
the vehicle was registered - Using the vehicle on public road    D
without any registration is not only an offence punishable u/s
192, it is also fundamental breach of the terms and conditions
of policy contract - Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

     The question for consideration in the present case
                                                                 E
was whether the appellant was entitled to compensation
under Consumer Protection Act 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.                 F

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act shows that
no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public            G
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
                             551                                 H
    552        SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 9 S.C.R.


A 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
B period by the registering authority only in 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
c circumstances· beyond the control of the owner. [Paras
  12 and 13] [557-G-H; 558-A-C]

      2. In the present case, 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
D 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
E 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. Therefore, using a vehicle on the public road
  without any registration is not only an offence
F punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act
  but also a fundamental breach of the terms and
  conditions of policy contract. [Para 14] [558-D-F]
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No 8463
G of 2014.
        From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2013 of the
    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
    Delhi in Revision Petition No. 4951 of 2012.

H         Virender Goswami, Gautam Naryan for the Appellant.
   NARINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE                  553
               COMPANY LTD.
      Senthil Jagadeesan, Dr. Anand Vardhan Sharma,               A
Chandra Pratap Singh, Varinder Kumar Sharma, V.K. Vasudev
for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    M.Y. EQBAL, J.: 1. Leave granted.                             B

     2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order dated 12.4.2013 passed by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in
short, "National Commission") whereby Revision Petition           c
No.49q1 of 2012 of the appellant herein was dismissed
 upholding the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes
 Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, "State Commission"),
rvhich had dismissed th.e complaint and setaside the order of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (in        D
 short, "District Forum") granting the claim on non-standard
 basis.

     3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

     4. The petitioner-complainant had purchased a Mahindra       E
Pick UP BS-II 4WD vehicle and got it insured for.an amount of
Rs. 4,30,037/- with respondent no.1-M/s. New India Assurance
Company Ltd. for the period 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2006. The
vehicle was temporarily registered for one month period, which
expired on 11.1.2006. However, on 2.2.2006, the vehicle met       F
with an accident and got damaged. The complainant lodged
FIR and informed about it to the respondent-Company, which
appointed a surveyor and assessed the loss at Rs.2,60,845/-
on repair basis. The insurance claim was, however, repudiated
by the opposite party on the ground that the person Rajeev        G
Hetta, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident,
did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and also
the vehicle had not been registered after the expiry of the
temporary registration. Consequently, the appellant filed a
consumer complaint before the District Forum.
                                                                  H
    554         SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 9 S.C.R.


A      5. After hearing parties on either side and scanning the
  record of the case meticulously, the District Forum allowed the
  complaint and directed the respondent-Company to indemnify
  the complainant to the extent of 75% of 4,30,037/- along with
  interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon with effect from
8 the date of filing of the complaint. Aggrieved by the decision
  of the District Forum, Respondent-Company as well as the
  appellant-complainant approached State Commission by way
  of appeal. The State Commission by its common order
  disposed of both the appeals, allowing appeal of the Company
C and dismissing the complaint of the Complainant due to which
  the appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant was
  dismissed as infructuous.

      6. Aggrieved by the decision of the,State Commission, the
  appellant preferred revision petition before the National
D Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection
  Act, 1986, which also stood dismissed. The National
  Commission observed thus:

          "We have examined the entire material on record and
E         given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments
          advanced before us. The State Commission, after a careful
          examination of the facts of this case and after examining
          the Licence Clerk of the Theog Licencing Authority came
          to the conclusion that the licence possessed by Rajeev
          Hetta had been endorsed for HGV with effect from
F
          20.4.2002, which was valid for three years. The licence
          was also endorsed for LMV-Transport with effect from
          7.6.2003, which was also valid for three years. The
          accident had taken place on 2.2.2006, on which date the
          licence for HGV had expired, but it remained valid for
G         LMV-transport. It is clear, therefore, that the driver had a
          valid and effective licence. However, it is-also clear from
          the facts on record that the temporary registration of the
          vehicle done by the Registration Authority of UT,
          Chandigarh had expired on 11.01.2006. At the time of
H
    NARINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE                     555
         COMPANY LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

    accident on 2.2.2006, the vehicle was being driven without        A
    registration, which is prohibited under Section 39 of the
    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is also an offence under
    Section 192 of the said Act.",

   Hence, present appeal by special leave by the                      B
complainant.

    7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
    8. It has been cqntended on behalf of the appellant that in
case of an accident of a vehicle, when insured, uses the vehicle      C
contrary to conditions under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles
Act (in short, 'Act') or when the driver is holding improper
licence contrary to requirement under Section 3 of the Act,
claims are required to be dealt on non-standard basis by
insurance companies. It has been further contended that similar       o
yardstick had to be taken into account in case of improper
registration of vehicle contrary to requirement under Section 39
of the Act and the claims ought to be settled on non-standard
basis rather than outright repudiation of policy and rejection of
claim in toto.
                                                                      E
     9. It is the case of the appellant that even when a vehicle
is used without registration having been done, it does not
amount to violation of any statutory requirement and in such a
case, if the accident takes place, !he insured is entitled to claim
benefit under the insurance policy. There is no statutory bar in      F
insuring the vehicle without registration and hence there is no
bar in making payment of insured sum in the eventuality of an
accident. Appellant submitted that the Apex Court in the case
of Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
(2010) 4 sec 536, has held that in case of any variation from         G
the policy documenUany breach of the policy document, the
Insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto and the
claim of the complainant ought to be settled on non-standard
basis. It is further contended that the main purpose of any
temporary/permanent registration is to have identification of the     H
    556         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A vehicle in the records of the Government authorities so as to .
  identify the vehicle, particularly, in case of any motor accident ..
  and for tracing the owner of the vehicle, and in this case, there
  was a temporary registration number (although its date expired)
  affixed on the vehicle, which would lead to the owner and other
B details as required in law.

       10. Per contra, respondent's case is that the vehicle can
  be driven only after proper registration and in the present case,
  the vehicle being driven without registration, which is in
  contravention to Section 192 of the Act. Further, there is no
C endorsement on the driving licence of Rajiv Hetta for driving
  HGV, which was valid up to 20.4.2002, and as such, there is
  violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as
  the vehicle in question was being driven by a person who was
  not authorized to drive the same.
D
       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
E 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:-
F         "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
G         registration of the vehicle has not 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
H         vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such
   NARINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE                     557
        .COMPANY LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
    conditions as may be prescribed by the Central                   A
    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
                                                                     B
    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        C
    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            0
    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
                                                                     E
    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-
    pu rchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the
    registering authority or other prescribed authority shall        F
    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."
                                                                     G
     12. 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.
                                                                     H
       558         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


 A          13. However, according to Section 43, the owner or 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
 s     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
 c     one month for being fitted with a body or unforeseen
       circumstances beyond the control of the owner.

        14. lnClisputably, 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
 D 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
 E 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 punis.hable under Section 192
   of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the
 F terms and conditions of policy contract.

            15. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity
       in the order passed by the State Commission and the National
       Commission .

., G       16. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal has no merit
       and is liable to be dismissed.
       Kalpana K. Tripathy                             Appeal dismissed.