LexNARINDER SINGH. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 551 NARINDER SINGH. v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.8463 of 2014) SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] A B 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 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. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act shows that E F 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 Pick UP BS-II 4WD vehicle and got it insured for.an amount of Rs. 4,30,037/- with respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.