M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 820 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 09.10.2012 passed in C. C. No.01/2011 by District Commission, Mandleshwar)

 

THE CHIEF MANAGER,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

BADWAHA BRANCH, DISTRICT-KHARGONE (M.P.)                                           … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

CHIEF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICER,

NAGAR PANCHAYAT, MANDLESHWAR,

DISTRICT-KHARGONE (M.P.)                                                                               … RESPONDENT.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

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

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA      :       MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. 

           Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                                      O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 06.06.2022)

                   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 09.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandleshwar (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 01/2011 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party/appellant.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of fire tender vehicle bearing registration no. MP-10 A-8217, insured with the

-2-

opposite party/appellant insurance company w.e.f. 14.10.2009 to 13.10.2010 for insured declared value (IDV) Rs.4,50,000/-. During the currency of the policy cover period, the said vehicle was sent to the factory for extinguishing the fire on 30.03.2010. While the vehicle was on its way to Karhi, an oncoming bus dashed into the subject vehicle resulting in its overturn and hence causing damage.  The insurance company appointed a surveyor in the matter who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.65,950/-, including salvage.  The insurance company denied the claim of the insured and therefore, aggrieved complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party /appellant-insurance company denied the claim of the subject vehicle on the ground that at the time of accident, the subject vehicle was being driven without fitness certificate which is violation of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’).  

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the opposite party /appellant insurance company to settle the insurance claim of the subject vehicle within a period of 45 days. Alternatively, it is directed that the insurance company shall pay the entire amount claimed by the complainant i.e. Rs.2,54,718/- with interest @ 9%

 

-3-

p.a. Compensation of Rs.7,000/- with another sum of Rs.500/- as costs is also awarded.  Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that the District Commission has committed material irregularity in not going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and relevant provisions of the ‘MVAct’ whereby Section 56 clearly contemplates that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39 unless it carries a certificate of fitness. He further argued that the District Commission further committed grave error in not going through the vehicular documents whereby the registration certificate of the vehicle clearly reveals that a fire tender is a ‘transport vehicle’.  In sub-section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document