STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 05 / 2018 United India Insurance Company Limited Regional Office, Ratan Palace Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun through its Chief Regional Manager …… Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Suman Dobhal S/o Sh. Jagat Ram R/o Village Nakot, Patti Laloor Tehsil Dhanaulti, District Tehri Garhwal Presently R/o Barnigad (Kua), Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi …… Respondent / Complainant Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II Dated: 08/09/2022

ORDER

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

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarkashi (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 24 of 2015; Sh. Suman Dobhal 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. 2,00,000/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from 04.09.2015, the date of filing of the consumer complaint till actual payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the respondent – complainant had got his vehicle bearing registration No. UK07-CA-1484 (Mahindra & Mahindra Utility Van) insured with the appellant – opposite party for the period from 23.04.2013 to 22.04.2014 at an IDV of Rs. 3,05,000/-. During the validity of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 20.11.2013 at about 9:00 p.m. on Delhi-Yamnotri National Highway and the vehicle fell in Yamuna river. The driver of the vehicle had jumped from the vehicle, hence his life could be saved. In the fatal accident, five persons died at the spot and the insured vehicle got completely damaged. The driving licence of the driver was valid for the period from 24.05.2012 to 23.05.2015. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged with the Revenue Police and intimation was forwarded to the insurance company, whose surveyor assessed the loss. The insurance company, however, did not settle the claim and paid the amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. The appellant – insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that on receipt of intimation regarding accident of insured vehicle, investigator was appointed, who submitted report dated 20.04.2014, stating therein that the fitness of the vehicle had expired on 03.04.2012 and the fitness certificate was not got renewed by the complainant. Therefore, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 15.05.2014 on the ground that the fitness of the vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. The complainant has neither submitted the repair bills of the vehicle, nor has given any information regarding salvage of the vehicle.

4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2017, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.

5. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. It is also admitted fact that the accident took place during the validity period of insurance. It is further not in dispute that all the papers of the vehicle were valid and effective on the date of accident, except the fitness certificate of the vehicle. Admittedly, the fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid and effective