STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/17/619 BHUPENDRA SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O DASHMESH COLONY WARD NO.14, SOORAJ GUNJ, ITARSI, TEH. ITARSI, DIST. HOSHANGABAD. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus NATIONAL INSU.CO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - DIV. MANAGER, DIV. OFF. 8, ZONE II, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL. TEH.

AND DIST. BHOPAL. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

KSHETRIYA PARIVAHAN ADHIKARI PRESENT ADDRESS - HOSHANGABAD, DIST. HOSHANGABAD. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

BHUPENDRA SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT: NATIONAL INSU.CO.LTD.

DATED: 09/10/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 27.01.2017 passed in C.C.No.130/2015 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

BHUPENDRA SINGH, S/O SHRI AJEET SINGH SAGGU, R/O DASHMESH COLONY, WARD NO.14, SURAJGANJ, ITARSI, TEHSIL-ITARSI, DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.8, ZONE-II, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TRANSPORT OFFICE, HOSHANGABAD (M.P.) … RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Arvind Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

None for the respondent no.2.

O R D E R (Passed on 09.10.2025)

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

This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.130/2015, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant was dismissed.

2. Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that complainant/appellant is owner of truck bearing registration no. MP-09 HF-1245, which was insured with the opposite party/respondent w.e.f. 30.07.2013 to 29.07.2014. During the currency of policy period, the subject vehicle met with an accident on 25.05.2014. The complainant had informed the police and the insurance company. It is alleged that the opposite party-insurance company denied the claim of the subject vehicle for want of fitness certificate. Aggrieved complainant thus approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company at the time of accident and on receiving intimation the Surveyor was appointed in the matter who has filed his report stating that the subject vehicle was not having fitness certificate at the time of accident. The complainant failed to produce valid and effective fitness certificate and therefore, the claim was repudiated. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the opposite party-insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service in denying the claim of the complainant on the basis of not having valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident, as also the complainant failed to make pleadings in his complaint that he had purchased the said truck to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that despite submission of all relevant documents, the insurance company has committed deficiency in service in denying his claim. He argued that the District Commission has erroneously dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant without considering the fact that the complainant had applied for and paid requisite fee for renewal of fitness certificate on 22.05.2014 i.e. before the date of accident 26.05.2014, but the RTO renewed the fitness certificate w.e.f. 26.05.2014 to 25