M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.916 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 21.02.2019 passed in Case.No.17/2017 by District Commission, Shajapur)

CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ASSISTANT MANAGER, STAR ARCADE PLOT NO.165-A, 166, ABOVE AXIS BANK, BHOPAL 462011 … APPELLANT.

Versus PRABHULAL BANJARA, R/O GRAM BHAVANIPURA, THANA AND TEHSIL SUSNER, DISTT.AGAR – MALWA 465447 .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE DR.SRIKANT PANDEY, ACTING PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri R.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri C.K.Valeja, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .01.2025)

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

This is an appeal by the opposite party / appellant –

Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) directed against the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shajapur (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.17/2017, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of a Tractor of Swaraj Company, bearing registration no.MP70A1195, engine No. 331008SRK3U96A and chassis no.WAIK24705025059 which was purchased by him for Rs.4,51,000/-. On 25.01.2016 the subject vehicle was stolen regarding which FIR was lodged with the Police Station, Kurawar. The subject vehicle was insured with Insurance Company w.e.f. 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016 via policy no.3380/00898544/000/00. It is alleged that the Insurance Company did not pay the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the subject vehicle despite the fact that the final report was executed in the matter. The complainant / respondent therefore, alleged deficiency in service against the Insurance Company and filed the complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant / respondent intimated the Insurance Company on 18.12.2015 regarding the theft which had happened on 26.11.2015 i.e. after delay of 22 days. Thus there has been violation of policy terms and conditions by the complainant / respondent. It is further submitted that the subject vehicle was registered on 08.01.2016 and the registration certificate was issued on 14.01.2016. This shows that the vehicle, on the date of theft i.e. on 26.11.2015 was being used without valid registration. The subject vehicle was also left unattended at a public place. Therefore, the claim is not payable. 4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant / respondent within a period of 45 days, failing which the amount is directed to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 16.12.2016, till payment. Cost of Rs.2000/- is also awarded.

Hence, this appeal.

5. Heard.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that it has wrongly been interpreted by the District Commission, on the basis of FIR, which was available on record that the theft had happened on 25.01.2016. There has been misrepresentation on the part of complainant / respondent. Learned counsel while referring to an application, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, filed by the Insurance Company with this appeal, argued that the documents which are annexed with this application prove that the theft had happened on 26.11.2015.

Exhibit A-7 annexed with the said application also shows that the vehicle was registered on 08.11.2016 and the same was clearly being used on the date of theft i.e. 26.11.2015 without any valid registration.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent on the other hand supported the impugned order and argued that the Insurance