MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

Date of filing :18.02.2019 Date of order :28.04.2022

1. FIRST APPEAL NO. : 318 OF 2019 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 84 OF 2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PARBHANI New India Assurance Co.Ltd. , Branch Office, Yashodeep Building, Shivaji Building, Parbhani Tq. & Dist.Parbhani.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. , Through its Divisional Manager/Authorised Signatory, Divisional Office, Mahesh Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. …APPELLANT VERSUS Balaji Shriram Mundhe, R/o Mundhe Nivas, Near Datta Mandir, Nanded-Gangakhed Road, Tq.Gangakhed, Dist.Parbhani.

RESPONDENT Date of filing :08.05.2019 Date of order :28.04.2022

2. FIRST APPEAL NO. : 887 OF 2019 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 84 OF 2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PARBHANI Balaji Shriram Mundhe, R/o Mundhe Nivas, Near Datta Mandir, Nanded Road, Tq.Gangakhed, Dist.Parbhani. …APPELLANT VERSUS New India Assurance Co.Ltd. , Branch Office, Yashodeep Building, Shivaji Building, Parbhani Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. …RESPONDENT CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

Present : Adv. S.G.Chapalgaonkar for insurance company , Adv.Amol Vasmatkar for org.complainant.

J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 28/04/2022)

Per Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1. That, The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. preferred this appeal No.317/19 against the judgment and order of District Commission Parbhani in C.C.No.84/2018 decided on 31/12/2018 thereby allowing complaint against them.

2. While the original complainant Balaji Shriram Mundhe has preferred appeal No.887/2019 against the same judgment, for enhancement of the amount as claimed in the original complaint as both appeals are arising out of same order, they are being decided with common order. Parties are hereinafter referred as per their status in the complaint.

3. It is the case of complainant Balaji Shriram Mundhe that he is resident of Nanded Road, Gangakhed., Tq.Gangakhed , Dist.Parbhani. He has purchased two air conditioned sleeper coach buses to run from Nanded to Pune Road. His bus No.MH-04 FK 0626 is insured with opponent insurance company for the period between 29.08.2016 to 28.08.2017 bearing policy NO.1607003160100000268. It was insured at Jalgaon office of opponent insurance company . He has obtained permit from Secretary of State of Road Transport Authority , Mumbai on 28/08/2016 for his both buses MH-04 FK 0636 & MH-04FK0626. As the travel business was in slack since 20/12/2016 the complainant has parked his both the buses in his field G.N.112/3 at Kasarwadi, Gangakhed in the courtyard of their school Late Marotrao Maharaj School for handicap. It is alleged that in the midnight at 2.00 a.m. on 30.12.2016 both the buses caught with fire. On receiving information from the employee of school the complainant gave phone call to fire brigade and also lodged complaint with police. Both buses were totally damaged by that time. It is the contention of complainant that as the fitness certificate of both the buses was about to be lapsed on 27.12.2016,he has parked both the vehicles since from 20.12.2016, without plying to start with the process with R.T.O. for renewal of fitness certificate. The complainant has submitted his claim proposals to opponent insurance company . However, the opponent informed him about repudiation of his claim on 31.01.2018. It was informed to him by opponent that as the permit of buses lapsed on 27.12.2016 and he has not renewed the vehicle within said period and he was supposed to get it renewed within time and to give intimation to the R.T.O. that he has parked his buses closed without plying on road.

4. It is contention of complainant that he has kept both buses closed, without plying on the road, it was not necessary to have a fitness certificate or to inform the RTO that these buses were kept closed when not plying on the road. Therefore, it is not just and proper to repudiate his claim for want of renewal of fitn