BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.SC/27/A/22/217 (Arisen out of order dated 18/11/2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/18/272 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri)

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Jeevan Seva, 2^nd Floor, S.V.Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 54, MRO-II, Mumbai Regional Office – II and also At Naik Complex, Shivajinagar, Ratnagiri -415612 and also at Mumbai Legal Hub, Ground Floor, 87, MG Road, Fort, Mumbai – 1. ........Appellants/

(Original Opponent)

V/s.

Jayprakash Babau Singh Opp.MIDC Plot No. K-55, Jhargaon Udyan Nagar, Near Convent School, Ratnagiri – 415639. ........Respondent/

(Original Complainant)

BEFORE:

Justice Mr.S.P. Tavade, Hon’ble President Mr.Vijay C. Premchandani, Hon’ble Member For Appellants : Adv.S.S.Dwivedi For Respondent : Adv.S.G.Pandey ORDER (01^st January 2026)

Per. Hon’ble Mr. Vijay.C.Premchandani. Member.

1. The Present Appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated

18.11.21 in C.C. No.72/2018 passed by the C.D.R.F. Ratnagiri.

FACTS OF APPEAL

2. The Respondent/Complainant filed the Complaint No.72/2018 before C.D.R.F. Ratnagirit against the Appellant/Opposite Party for alleged deficiency in service. The Driver of the insured vehicle was not holding effective valid Driving License to drive the vehicle at time of the alleged accident. It is further mentioned in the appeal Memo that Driving License validity period was from 16.7.2012 to 15.72015 and subsequently renewed from 06.1.2016 to 05.1.2019. The driving license expired on 15.7.2015 and alleged accident occurred on 07.11.2015 and the license was renewed on 06.01.2016. Thus the Driver was not holding valid driving license at the time of alleged accident. The respondent breached the terms and condition of the Policy hence the claim does not fall within the purview of the Policy. The impugned order has been passed against the Appellant on 18.11.21 and Hon’ble Forum directed the Appellant to pay the Rs.7,52,960/- with Interest @ 6% to the Respondent ( Original Complainant), Rs. 10,000/- towards harassment and Rs.5000/- towards cost.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

3. The Appellant contented in the grounds of the appeal that Hon’ble Forum has not considered that the driver was not holding effective valid driving license at the time of alleged accident. The Respondent failed to substantiate his claim and failed to establish to prove deficiency in service against the appellant. The Respondent’s claim in his complaint does not fall within the purview of the terms and condition of the said policy. There are discrepancies in the cause of accident mentioned in claim form, spot survey, police statement and in complaint. The Hon’ble Forum erred in not relying and not referring any of the citation produced by appellant.

4. The Appellant further contented that the appellant advocate received the order assed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum Ratnagiri on 18.11.2021 and the copy was received on 12.01.2022. Hence there is a delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal and the delay in filing the appeal may be condone. The Appellant prayed that the impugned order and Judgment dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble C.D.R.F. Ratnagiri in C.C.NO.72/2018 be Set aside and quashed or it may be Remand back the Complaint No.72/2018 for hearing a fresh.

5. Vide Order dated 04^th May 2022 the delay in filling the present Appeal is condoned by this Commission. This Commission issued Notice to Respondent, Respondent appeared, Both the Parties filed their written Notes of Argument on this appeal. We perused the Appeal Memo, Impugned Judgment order, Documents annexed along with the appeal Memo as well as, Both sides written notes of argument, Hard both sides we, come to the conclusion that the following order should be passed as reasoned below:

LAW AND REASONING.

6. The Advocate for the appellant argued that the learned district Commission has not considered that driving license was expired o