DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No. : CC/1064/2016 Date of Institution : 14/12/2016 Date of Decision : 01/01/2018 Arti Nishchal W/o Deshraj Nishchal, resident of H.No. 1938, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. ?..Complainant V E R S U S [1] ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No. 149, 4th Floor, Indl. Area, Phase-I, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Manager. [2] ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai ? 400025, through its Managing Director. [3] Partap Auto (India) Ltd., Plot 182/183, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Manager. ??Opposite Parties QUORUM: MRS.SURJEET KAUR PRESIDING MEMBER SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA MEMBER ARGUED BY : Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Sh. Shankar Rawat, Works Manager for Opposite Party No.3. PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER Mrs. Arti Nishchal, complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited & Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that she had purchased a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle for her son on 25.4.2015 for Rs.91,948/-. A temporary number CH-32-T-4312 was also issued for the said motorcycle and an insurance policy was also issued on 25.04.2015. Due to illness of her minor son, the Complainant could not get the said motorcycle registered, but got its insurance renewed on temporary number CH-32-T-4312 from 29.05.2016 to 28.05.2017 after paying the requisite premium, with an IDV of Rs.80,426/-. Unfortunately, on the intervening night of 1.8.2016/2.8.2016 while the said motorcycle was parked in the house of the Complainant, a spark due to short circuit in the overhead electricity wire fell on the motorcycle and it caught fire. The fire brigade was immediately informed and the fire was extinguished. The matter was reported to the police and a DDR No.5 dated 2.8.2016 was duly recorded by the police. The motor cycle was completely burnt. The Complainant reported the matter to the Opposite Parties and lodged a claim. On the advice of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant took the motorcycle to Opposite Party No.3 (the repairer), who gave any estimate of Rs.70,000/-. The Survey was conducted and the Opposite Parties telephonically informed the Complainant that the motorcycle was a total loss, as the estimate of repair was beyond 75% of IDV. However, to her utter shock vide letter dated 29.09.2016, the Opposite Parties repudiated her claim on the ground that the motorcycle was not registered at the time of loss. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. In their written reply, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have pleaded that the renewal of the policy was done on the basis of the information provided. There can be no insurance coverage against the provisions of law. It was the duty of the person who is the owner of a vehicle to ensure that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act are duly complied with. Since the Complainant herself was at fault as after expiry of the temporary registration of the motorcycle in question, she did not apply for registration with the concerned authority, the Opposite Parties were justified in repudiating her claim vide letter dated 29.09.2016. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Opposite Party No.3 in its written reply has pleaded that it has nothing to do with the present controversy which was purely between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties. It has been submitted by ld. counsel for the Complainant that motor cycle was stationary at the time of loss. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, specifically states that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of the motor vehicle shall call 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 the Registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displaced in the prescribed manner. This section specifically states that the vehicle should be in the process of moving whereas the stolen vehicle was a stationary vehicle. Hence plea taken by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 while repudiating the claim of the stationary vehicle, is not applicable at all. Admittedly, the temporary registration was valid only for a period of one month and the petitioner did not get the motor cycle registered with the concerned Authority, in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the counsel for the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The core question, that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the Opposite Parties - Insurance Company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the complainant/insured, in toto, in respect of the motor cycle, in question, merely on the ground that it was being used in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, meaning thereby that it was not having a valid registration certificate, at the time of loss. Admittedly, in the instant case, the motor cycle, in question, was purchased on 25.04.2015. It was granted temporary registration number, for one month, which expired on 24.04.2015. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Complainant got the insurance of the motor cycle in question renewed from 29.05.2016 to 28.05.2017, on temporary registration number i.e. CH-32-T-4312, but failed to register the vehicle permanently. The motor cycle was badly burnt on 01.08.2016/02.08.2016. There is no dispute about the fact that when the motor cycle, in question, was damaged, it was not having a valid registration certificate. In other words, it was being used without a valid registration certificate, on the date of loss thereof. Section 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are relevant for the determination of controversy read as under:- 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 been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carriers 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. A bare perusal of Section 39 afore-extracted, reveals that no person shall use 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, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarifies 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 was granted, in respect of chassis to which, body has not been attached, and the same was 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. In the instant case, as stated above, temporary registration certificate of the motor cycle, in question, expired on 24.04.2015. There is nothing on the record, that immediately thereafter, the complainant applied for registration of the vehicle, with the Registering Authority. Rather, as per the Complainant?s assertion due to ill health of her son, she could not get the same registered, which is not acceptable, in as much as, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why the Complainant could not get the vehicle registered for a period of more than 15 months. It is not the case of the Complainant that she was not doing the normal day to day works or that the motor cycle in question was not being used at all for the period of 15 days. It is thus legitimately proved that till the date of loss of the motor cycle, in question, it had not been registered with the Registering Authority and was being used without any valid registration certificate, up till 01.08.2016/02.08.2016, when it was burnt and damaged. Thus, to our mind, the motor cycle was being used completely in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is cardinal principle of law, as laid down by the Hon?ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that if the vehicle was being used without valid registering certificate, and damage to the same or loss thereof occurred, then the Insurance Company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured, in toto. In the present case, the motor cycle, in question, was being used, in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the time of loss thereof, to our mind, the insurer was justified in legally and validly repudiating the claim of the complainant. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Sd/- Sd/- 01/01/2018 [Suresh Kumar Sardana] [Surjeet Kaur] Member Presiding Member ?Dutt?