Whereas setting apart orders handed by the fora under, the nationwide shopper disputes redressal fee (NCDRC) clarified that the proprietor of a automobile insured however not registered as per the Motor Automobiles Act and guidelines can not file an insurance coverage declare.
In an order, the NCDRC bench of Dr Inder Jit Singh says, “We agree that insurance coverage is a pre-requisite for registration in view of Rule 47 of the central motorcar guidelines. It’s a regular apply that for any new automobile to be delivered to the purchaser, and to permit the automobile to come back on the highway, insurance coverage, which is a compulsory requirement, is issued primarily based on chassis and engine quantity. Usually, the registration quantity is added in a while both within the type of an endorsement or by means of issuing a revised coverage doc. Merely holding a sound insurance coverage coverage however plying the automobile in violation of motorcar guidelines and act will make a declare below the insurance coverage coverage, which is legitimate in any other case, non-admissible.”
“Therefore, we discover that the motion of the petitioner insurance coverage firm in repudiating the declare on the bottom that on the date of the incident, the automobile was not registered is justified and a lawful motion and each the fora under dedicated a cloth irregularity,” Dr Singh says.
On 23 January 2007, Delhi-based Rajiv Kumar Agarwal purchased a Chevrolet Tavera from Regent Vehicles on rent buy settlement by way of ICICI Financial institution Ltd, which was insured with HDFC Ergo Basic Insurance coverage Firm Ltd for Rs6.57 lakh. The coverage was issued from the date of buy until 22 January 2008.
Nevertheless, on 22 February 2007, Mr Agarwal alleged his automobile was stolen from the car parking zone of his residence. He filed a report at Vivek Vihar police station, intimated HDFC Ergo Basic Insurance coverage concerning the theft, and filed an insurance coverage declare.
On 11 January 2008, HDFC Ergo Basic Insurance coverage rejected the declare stating that the automobile was being pushed on the general public highway with none legitimate registration on the time of the theft and the phrases and situations of the coverage weren’t complied with.
Mr Agarwal filed a grievance earlier than the New Delhi district shopper disputes redressal discussion board VI, which directed the insurer to pay Rs6.57 lakh with an curiosity of 9% from submitting the grievance and Rs25,000 as compensation.
The enchantment filed by HDFC Ergo Basic Insurance coverage was dismissed by the Delhi state shopper disputes redressal fee. The insurance coverage firm then filed a revision petition earlier than NCDRC.
HDFC Ergo Basic Insurance coverage contended that the automobile was not registered on the date of theft. “The state fee didn’t contemplate the truth that registration of the automobile is a compulsory obligation below part 39 of the motorcar act and absence of registration of car doesn’t entitle the insured for protection below the coverage,” it says.
Mr Agarwal contended that since he paid the premium of the coverage, the chance is roofed and the insurer ought to indemnify him in opposition to the lack of the automobile by housebreaking, theft and as per the regulation when a policyholder purchases the coverage and pays the premium, the contractual duty as a shopper with the corporate is established.
“Regent Vehicles had not supplied any momentary registration to me when it was delivered to him, and HDFC Ergo Basic Insurance coverage has insured the identical, understanding totally properly that for the stated automobile, insurance coverage was executed primarily based on engine and chassis quantity and understanding totally properly on the time of insurance coverage that stated automobile didn’t have any registration quantity. The truth that the automobile didn’t have a registration quantity on the time of insurance coverage was recognized to the insurance coverage firm and HDFC Ergo Basic Insurance coverage neither on the time of insurance coverage nor of their additional endorsements ever knowledgeable me that registration of the automobile is a situation precedent,” he added.
HDFC Ergo Basic Insurance coverage submitted that though it’s permissible to insure a automobile primarily based on its chassis and engine quantity solely earlier than the registration, as insurance coverage is a compulsory requirement even for the registration of the automobile, below Rule 47 of the central motorcar guidelines. Nonetheless, it isn’t permissible for the authorised vendor to ship the automobile to the purchaser with out registration and/ or for the purchaser to ply the automobile on the highway with out legitimate registration.
It additional contended that it isn’t the case of Mr Agarwal that the insured automobile was being carried or has been carried in a truck from the vendor’s place and saved in his dwelling storage and therefore was by no means plied in a public place. “Therefore, the excuse that automobile was stationary is irrelevant. On this case, the automobile was bought on 23 January 2007 and remained unregistered until the date of theft, 22 February 2007.”
After fastidiously going by way of all the details and circumstances of the case, rival contentions of the events, the related provisions of the Motor Automobiles Act and guidelines and associated case legal guidelines cited by the events, NCDRC says it’s of the view that the motion of Mr Agarwal in taking the automobile on a public highway with out legitimate registration, both momentary or everlasting, is in clear violation of the provisions of the Motor Automobiles Act and guidelines and as per the case legal guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court docket in varied circumstances. “This can take the automobile past the safety of the insurance coverage coverage.”
(Revision Petition No453 of 2018 Date: 25 July 2023)
