STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 34 / 2018 United India Insurance Company Limited Regional Office, Ratan Palace Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun through its Assistant Manager Sh. Ashwini Kasana …… Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Ankur Oli S/o Sh. Dinesh Chand Oli R/o Cement Road, Tanakpur, Post Tanakpur Tehsil Shree Purnagiri, District Champawat …… Respondent / Complainant Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Anand Chamoli, Learned Counsel for Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II Dated: 16/08/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Champawat (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 01 of 2014; Sh. Ankur Oli Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant – opposite party was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,12,031.34/- to the respondent – complainant together with litigation expenses and expenses amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, in all, Rs. 2,22,031.34/- along with interest @7% p.a. from 08.01.2014, i.e., the date of institution of the consumer complaint, within a period of one month from the date of impugned judgment and order, failing which it was directed that the interest awarded on the above sum shall stand payable @7% p.a. upto the date of impugned judgment and order and thereafter, the interest shall be payable @9% p.a.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the respondent – complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. UK03-0223. On 06.06.2012, while the insured vehicle was going from Champawat to Tanakpur, it met with an accident near Tiffin Top. In the said accident, the vehicle was badly damaged. On the date of accident, all the documents of the vehicle were valid and the driver thereof was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle was insured with the appellant – opposite party at an IDV of Rs. 5,80,000/-. The insured vehicle was inspected by the surveyor of the insurance company at M/s Sachdeva Auto Electricals, Haldwani. The surveyor assessed the loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/-. In the hope of getting the claim from the insurance company, the complainant got the vehicle repaired and paid the aforesaid amount of repair charges to the repairer, besides incurring Rs. 25,000/- in towing the vehicle to the workshop. The insured vehicle was purchased by the complainant after availing loan facility from The Nainital Bank Limited, Lohaghat. The claim so preferred by the complainant, was repudiated by the insurance company through letter dated 12.11.2012, on the ground that on the date of accident, the fitness certificate of the vehicle was not valid, although the complainant through his letter dated 10.07.2012, had informed the insurance company that he was taking the vehicle to R.T.O., Tanakpur for fitness purposes. The accident in question had occurred on account of falling of stone on the vehicle and there was no technical defect in the vehicle. The insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant approached the District Commission by filing a consumer complaint.

3. The appellant – insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that on the date of accident on the insured vehicle, there was no valid fitness certificate, hence the claim was not payable by the insurance company and was rightly turned down / repudiated. The surveyor of the insurance company has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,12,031.34/-. There has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

4. After