ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President.—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No.21 of 2019, styled as Sh. Mohd. Aslam vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, whereby the consumer complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the appellant/complainant was the registered owner of truck bearing registration No.UP25-T-5108, which was insured with the respondent/opposite party for the period from 21.08.2017 to 20.08.2018. On account of no work due to rainy season, the insured vehicle was parked by the complainant near Railway Line, Chorgalia Road, Near Gola Bypass, Haldwani, District Nainital, at a safe place. On 23.06.2018 at about 11:00 p.m., the complainant received an intimation regarding fire in the truck, which was informed to the Fire Brigade authorities, who extinguished the fire. On account of fire, the insured vehicle was extensively damaged, causing a loss of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was intimated to the insurance company on 17.07.2018. However, the insurance company did not settle the claim. Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The respondent/opposite party filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that after receiving the intimation of fire after a delay of about one month, surveyor was deputed to assess the loss. During inspection, the surveyor found that the insured truck was parked in the plot for more than 1½ years’ and the same was not in a running condition. Therefore, the possibility of fire in the vehicle due to short circuit, was suspicious. The battery’s damage were also not available and some parts of the vehicle were found missing. It was also pleaded that the complainant has not submitted any estimate of loss; permit; fitness of the vehicle & road tax and has not cooperated with the surveyor inspite of several requests. The insurance company through letter dated 24.07.2018 demanded certain documents from the complainant, but the complainant did not provide the same. The complainant is not entitled to the relief claimed and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission, after hearing the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2020. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant / complainant has filed the instant appeal.

5. The incident of fire in the insured vehicle is dated 23.06.2018. In the consumer complaint, the complainant has alleged that due to no work on account of rainy season, he had parked the vehicle. The date of such parking of the vehicle has not been disclosed by the complainant. The insurance company has specifically pleaded that during the course of inspection, the surveyor has found that the insured vehicle was parked in a plot for more than 1½ years’ and the same was not in a running condition. The surveyor also found that battery’s damage parts were not available at the spot and some parts of the vehicle were missing. The copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle is Paper No.5/4 of the original record, which shows that the tax was paid upto 30.04.2016 and the fitness was valid upto 16.08.2016. As is stated above, the incident is of dated 23.06.2018 and there is nothing on record to show that on the date of incident, the fitness of the vehicle was valid and the complainant had also paid the tax. This fact has also transpired that the vehicle was not in running condition and had the subject vehicle been in running condition, the fitness would have been upto date and entire taxes would have duly been paid in time.

6. It is true