ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. K.M. THIRUNAVUKKARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below i.e. order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul and thereafter by the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 05.4.2007, the Oriental Insurance Company who was arrayed as opposite party in the complaint filed by the respondent herein has filed this petition purportedly under Section 21 -B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). The consumer dispute raised in the complaint related to non -settlement of insurance claim in respect of an insured motor vehicle (car) which met with an accident within about three months of its purchase and insurance. The insurance company repudiated the claim primarily on the ground that the insured, had committed violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in particular, that at the time of the accident causing damage to the vehicle, the insured vehicle in question was not registered within the meaning of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act of. 1988'). The District Forum held the repudiation unjustified and allowed the complaint, thereby directing the insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant by paying a sum of Rs. 4,12,183/ - with 6% interest from the date of complaint i.e. 19.11.2003 till realization with cost of the proceedings amounting to Rs. 1,000/ -.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, insurance company filed appeal before the State Commission but without success. The State Commission dismissed the appeal by a brief order and repelled the plea put forth on behalf of the appellant -insurance company by observing as under:

(3.) COMING to the facts of the present case it is not disputed that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 31.1.2001 and a temporary registration obtained within the meaning of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The said registration at the most was valid for one month i.e. 02.3.2001 (taking the term month, appearing in Section 41 as 30 days, although month of February is of 28/29 days), the complainant made no effort and did not obtain permanent registration of the vehicle either before that date i.e. 02.3.2001 or uptil 25.3.2001, the date of accident of the vehicle. That would show that the vehicle in question remained without any registration for a period of about 23 days and was on 25.03.2001 also. We have reasons to disbelieve that it was only taken out on the road only on 25.3.2001 for the purpose of presenting it to the transport registering authority for the purpose of obtaining permanent registration. Mr. Toms submits that in view of the requirement of physical production of the vehicle before the registering authority at the time of registration, it was obligatory for the complainant to take the car to the authority and the accident was caused and one person died while it was being driven to the office of the registering authority. Even if we believe this version of the complainant, we are of the clear view that the complainant cannot seek any benefit of that circumstance from Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This shows that there was flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 39 of 1988 Act as the complainant failed to obtain permanent registration number for the vehicle before expiry of the temporary registration number or even several days thereafter. He had taken a calculated risk in not registering the vehicle with the concerned registering authority and committing clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy disentitling the respondent -complainant to indemnification of the insurance claim under the policy.