<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday declared that an insurance company can repudiate the claim of a stolen vehicle if it is being driven after the expiry of its temporary registration number.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi said there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance when the incident related to potential liability has occurred.</p>.<p>The top court set aside a judgement of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had dismissed a plea by the United Insurance Company Ltd against the Rajasthan state commission's order to pay Rs 6,17,800 to Sushil Kumar Godara along with 9 per cent interest for claims of his new Bolero car being stolen from Jodhpur.</p>.<p>It pointed out, "On the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven and used without valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy."</p>.<p>The bench relied upon its 2014 judgement in Narinder Singh's case to say that although it was related to a case of an accident, in this incident as well, the vehicle was driven after expiry of temporary registration.</p>.<p>It also pointed out that not only was the vehicle being driven but it was also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight at a guest house from where it was stolen. Further, there was nothing on record to suggest that the owner had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. </p>.<p>The bench also said the NCDRC disregarded not only binding judgement of this court but its own previous judgement in Naveen Kumar's case of 2019 which stated that if a vehicle without a valid registration was or had been used or driven in a public place or any other place that would constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, though the vehicle was not being driven at the time it was stolen or was damaged.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest DH videos here</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday declared that an insurance company can repudiate the claim of a stolen vehicle if it is being driven after the expiry of its temporary registration number.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi said there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance when the incident related to potential liability has occurred.</p>.<p>The top court set aside a judgement of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had dismissed a plea by the United Insurance Company Ltd against the Rajasthan state commission's order to pay Rs 6,17,800 to Sushil Kumar Godara along with 9 per cent interest for claims of his new Bolero car being stolen from Jodhpur.</p>.<p>It pointed out, "On the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven and used without valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy."</p>.<p>The bench relied upon its 2014 judgement in Narinder Singh's case to say that although it was related to a case of an accident, in this incident as well, the vehicle was driven after expiry of temporary registration.</p>.<p>It also pointed out that not only was the vehicle being driven but it was also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight at a guest house from where it was stolen. Further, there was nothing on record to suggest that the owner had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. </p>.<p>The bench also said the NCDRC disregarded not only binding judgement of this court but its own previous judgement in Naveen Kumar's case of 2019 which stated that if a vehicle without a valid registration was or had been used or driven in a public place or any other place that would constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, though the vehicle was not being driven at the time it was stolen or was damaged.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest DH videos here</strong></p>
