Judgment:
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.
1. Though this appeal has been listed for orders regarding acceptance of service of notice on respondent No. 2 - the owner of the offending vehicle, taken out by way of paper publication, having regard to short ground urged in this appeal, by the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents-claimants, the matter was heard on merits.
2. In this appeal by the insurer, questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 28.6.2005 passed by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7) in MVC. No. 3424/2006, the appellant has urged two grounds viz., (1) as on the date of the accident, the registration of the offending vehicle was not in force and therefore, the life time policy issued till the cancellation of the registration had automatically come to an end and therefore as on the date of the accident there was no valid policy in force as such the Tribunal is in error in foisting the liability to satisfy the award on the insurer of the offending vehicle and secondly the compensation awarded to the claimant towards loss of earning for a period of 500 days is without any basis, as such it is liable to be set aside.
3. There is no dispute that the scooter bearing registration No. MET 5637 owned by respondent No. 2 herein dashed against the claimant at about 4.45 a.m. on 28.10.2000 as a result the claimant sustained Injuries. There is also no dispute that the appellant -Insurance Company had issued a life time policy in respect of the scooter in question on 15.12.1994 valid from 16.12.1994 till the cancellation of the registration. Thus, as on the date of the accident, the policy was in force subject to the validity of the registration.
4. It is the contention of the appellant - Insurance Company that the registration of a vehicle is valid only for a period of 15 years and thereafter the registration has to be renewed from time to time and in the case on hand, the vehicle was registered initially on 26.4.1978 as such its registration came to an end on 25.4.1993 and the insured has not produced any document to show that subsequently the registration has been renewed, as such, on 15.12.1994 when the policy was issued there was no valid registration, therefore, the policy issued was void ab initio. However, the Tribunal dealing with this contention has noticed that the insurer has not produced any document to show that registration of the vehicle has been cancelled as on the date of the accident and as a result the policy has come to an end.
5. Sri. P.B. Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant drawing our attention to Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') contended that owner of the Vehicle is under an obligation to get the registration renewed after expiry of 15 years from the date of initial registration and since in the case on hand the owner has not placed any material to show that he had got the registration renewed subsequent to the expiry of initial period of 15 years, the policy though issued subsequent to the expiry of the initial period of 15 years had no force as on the date of the accident.
6. Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:
41. Registration, how to be made.- (1) An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particulars and information and shall be made within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government:
Provided that where a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more persons than one, the application shall be mode by one of them on behalf of all the owners and such applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act.
(2) An application referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) The registering authority shall issue to the owner of a motor vehicle registered by it a certificate of registration in such form and containing such particulars and information and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(4) In addition to the other particulars required to be included in the certificate of registration, it shall also specify the type of the motor vehicle, being a type as me Central Government may, having regard to the design, construction and use of the motor vehicle, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.
(5) The registering authority shall enter the particulars of the certificate referred to in Sub-section (3) in a register to be maintained in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(6) The registering authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a distinguishing mark (in this Act referred to as the registration mark) consisting of one of the groups of such of those letters and followed by such letters and figures as are allotted to the State by the Central Government from time to time by notification in the Official Gazettee, and displayed and shown on the motor vehicle in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(7) A certificate of registration issued under Sub-section (3), whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act, be valid only for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue of such certificate and shall be renewable.
(8) An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, for the renewal of a certificate of registration shall be made within such period and in such form, containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government
(9) An application referred to in Sub-section (8) shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(10) Subject to the provisions of Section 56, the registering authority may, on receipt of an application under Sub-section (8), renew the certificate of registration for a period of five years and intimate the fact to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority.
(11) If the owner fails to make an application under Sub-section (1), or, as the case may be, under Sub-section (8) within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the owner to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177, such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under Sub-section (13):
Provided that action under Section 177 shall be taken against the owner where the owner Jails to pay the said amount.
(12) Where the owner has paid the amount under Sub-section (11), no action shall be taken against him under Section 177.
(13) For the purposes of Sub-section (11), the State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the owner in making an application under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (8).
(14) An application for the issue of a duplicate certificate of registration shall be made to the last registering authority in such form, containing such particulars and information along with such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
7. Reading of the above provision make it clear that while there is an obligation on the owner of a motor vehicle to apply for renewal of certificate of registration after the expiry of the initial period of 15 years in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 41 of the Act, consequences of not making such an application are indicated under Sub-section (11) of Section 41 of the Act.
8. In terms of Sub-section (11), in the case of non-transport vehicles, the non-renewal can result in levy of fine for seeking renewal thereafter. The provisions of Section 177 of the Act are also attracted.
9. Therefore, a renewal even after expiry of initial period of 15 years is a formality required in law and if not done within the prescribed period it can be done by paying a fine. The provisions of Section 177 of the Act are general provisions providing for punishment for contravention of any provisions of the Act and the Rules.
10. A combined reading of these statutory provisions does not indicate that on the failure to seek renewal of the registration, the registration gets automatically cancelled or ceases to operate. A certificate of registration can be either suspended under the circumstances set out in Section 53 of the Act or cancelled under the circumstances set out in Sections 54 and 55 of the Act. However, failure to seek renewal of the registration, is not a circumstance set out either in Section 53 to suspend the registration or in Sections 54 and 55 to cancel the registration.
11. In this state of affairs, assuming for the sake of argument that the renewal had not been done, it does not necessarily imply that there was no registration at all in respect of a vehicle.
12. Obviously, when once a registration is granted, it enure to the benefit of the owner of the vehicle and in respect of the vehicle until and unless it is positively cancelled by the registering authority.
13. In this state of legal position, the fact that the appellant - Insurance Company issued the policy in the year 1994 that is after the expiry of initial period of 15 years, which is not disputed by Sri. P.B. Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant, only further weakens the case of the appellant and in fact the appellant is estopped from contending to the contrary assuming the legal position so, particularly to the detriment of a third party claimant whatever might have been the position vis-a-vis the owner of the vehicle.
14. With the owner of the vehicle who cannot be served in the normal course, but in the case on hand who had been served by paper publication, blissfully remaining absent, we do not find any need for interference in this appeal to cause any reduction in the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant and therefore the other contentions urged by Sri. P.B. Raju regarding the quantum recedes to the background and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.