Case nº Revision Petition No. 626 Of 2013, (Against the Order dated 26/10/2012 in Appeal No. 1779/2010 of the State Commission Haryana) With Ia/1130/2013,Ia/1131/2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 12, 2013 (case 1. Aroma Paints Ltd. and Anr. 2. Mr. Trajiv Sethi Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.)

Judge:For Appellant: Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. T.V.George, Advocate
President:Mr. J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Mr. Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Defense:Motor Vehicles Act - Section 39
Resolution Date:August 12, 2013
Issuing Organization:National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


  1. This revision petition pivots around the question, hether the insurance company can repudiate the claim of the claimant/insured because he was having temporary registration only and was not carrying Registration Certificate, under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

  2. Aroma Paints Ltd., the complainant, in this case, obtained insurance policy, in respect of its Indigo XL icor for a sum of Rs.7,35,548/-, from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., OPs/ Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. On 01.07.2007, i.e., during the subsistence of the policy, the above said car met with an accident. The Surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss on, otal lossbasis, in the sum of Rs.6,85,941/-. The Respondents/OPs repudiated the claim, on the ground that the complainant had not got done registration of the car. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 09.02.2007. He had temporary registration of the vehicle which was valid up to 08.03.2007, as per Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident took place after the elapse of four months, approximately, from the date of purchase.

  3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Insurance Company, to make payment of Rs.7,35,548/-, along with interest @ 9% p.a., compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service, mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.5,000/-, towards litigation expenses.

  4. Aggrieved by that order, the OPs/Insurance Company, filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide its order dated 26.10.2012, accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission held that the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were mandatory. It has cited the following authorities, in support of the case. (1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 644 and (2) Surajmal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 567.

  5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the Insurance Co., has placed reliance on the following two cases of this Commission. (1) RP No.4951 of 2012, decided on 19.03.2013, (Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Ors.), wherein it was held:.. At the time of accident on 02.02.2006, the vehicle was being driven without registration, which is prohibited under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is also an...

To continue reading