RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the "Lok Adalat"), dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 22 -C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1987"), for settlement of dispute of Insurance Policy No.0100924327 and Claim No.620775590 set up by the petitioner.
(2.) In brief, the petitioner had purchased Mahindra and Mahindra Scorpio vehicle on 25.02.2014 bearing temporary registration No.HR99PM/2744. The vehicle was insured w.e.f. 14.02.2014 to 13.02.2015 by respondent No.2. The vehicle was alleged to have been stolen on the intervening night of 26/27.04.2014. The petitioner lodged a formal FIR No.427 dated 05.05.2014, under Section 379 IPC against the unknown person. Admittedly, the permanent registration No.HR -24P/5756 was obtained on 14.05.2014. The Lok Adalat dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that as per Section 43(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the temporary registration of the vehicle is valid only for a period of one month and is not renewable, meaning thereby the owner of the vehicle has to obtain permanent registration number within a period of 30 days and according to Section 39 of the Act, no person can drive any motor vehicle in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Act is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy/contract. The Lok Adalat made the following observations in para 12 of its judgment in this regard: - "12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that order of repudiation is liable to be maintained in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010 titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chandra Chadha decided on 17.8.2010 and Civil Apepal No.9053 of 2014 decided on 18.9.2015 titled as BA Lokesh Kumar Versus Manager, Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. and Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014 titled as Narender Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, decided on 4.9.2014. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgments delivered by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd.and another Vs. Partap Bhagwan Patil, II (2015) CPJ 739 (NC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidya Bai, I (2015) CPJ 384. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Daya Chand and another, 2015(2) PLR 448. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order of the Lok Adalat. Before I proceed further, Sections 39 and 43 of the Act need to be mentioned, which are reproduced 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 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 issued 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."
(3.) While interpreting the aforesaid provisions, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 272 held as under: - "13. However, 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. 14. Indisputably, 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 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 the Act or 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 punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract." ;