M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1255 OF 2011

(Arising out of order dated 29.06.2011 passed in C.C.No.37/2008 by District Commission, Badwani)

 

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

71, SEWANI TOWERS, M.P.NAGAR,

BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                                        … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

NILESH SIRVI,

VILLAGE-POSHVADA,

TEHSIL-MANAVAR, DISTRICT-DHAR (M.P.)                                                        … RESPONDENT.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE DR (MRS) MONIKA MALIK     :          PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                :        MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                  :        MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

                Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. 

           Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for respondent.     

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 18.04.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the opposite party/appellant is directed against the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Badwani (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.37/2008, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent was partly allowed.

 

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that complainant/respondent is owner of Tata Pick Up van which was insured with the opposite party/appellant w.e.f. 04.06.2006 to 03.06.2007. During the currency of policy, the subject vehicle met with an accident on 26.04.2007. FIR was lodged and insurance company was duly informed. It is alleged that the opposite party-insurance company denied the claim of the subject vehicle. Aggrieved complainant thus approached the District Commission, seeking relief.  

3.                The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the subject vehicle at the time of accident was being run without fitness certificate of the RTO.  Hence the claim is not payable and the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim as it is not liable to indemnify the claim of the insured.

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party-insurance company to pay Rs.55,050/- along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation. On the aforesaid amount interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization is also awarded. Additionally, Rs.1000/- is also awarded towards costs. Hence, this appeal.

5.                Heard learned counsels for parties.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the subject vehicle at the time of accident was being driven without fitness certificate. As a consequence, the subject vehicle was being used in violation of

-3-

provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MVAct’).  The District Commission has erroneously passed the impugned order, allowing the complaint of the complainant/respondent.

7.                Learned counsel for respondent argued that the
District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order holding that the subject vehicle was brand new vehicle and it was fit for use. The insurance company is thus liable to indemnify the claim when it had issued insurance policy in aforesaid regard.

8.                In Chapter IV, Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with registration of motor vehicles provides thus:

39. Necessity for registration—No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor ve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document