BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.426 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.89 OF 2014, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD Between:

The Chief Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd., 3^rd floor, 3-6-180/2, Kuchkulla House, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.

.…Appellant/Opp.Party No.2 And Ramazan Ali Gowlani, S/o.Mohammed Ali, Age: 62 years, Occ: Business Diamond Transport, Adilabad.

R/o.Vg: Bokkalguda, Masoodnagar, Adilabad (Died per LRs)

1. Shireen Gaulani, S/o.Late Ramzan Ali Gowlani, Age: 24 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

2. Ali Shah Gaulani, S/o.Late Ramzan Ali Gowlani, Age: 22 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

…..Respondents/Complainants 3. The Branch Manager, HDFC, Branch Office, at Cinema Road, Adilabad.

…..Respondent/Opp.Party No.1 Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party No.2 : M/s.N.Srinath Rao Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants: M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party No.1: M/s.M.Indrasen QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble In-charge President)

1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to allow the appeal by setting aside the order dated

21.12.2018 passed in CC.No.89 of 2014 on the file of District Consumer Forum at Adilabad and pass such other or further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants are the Opposite Parties and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.441/2019.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that – the Complainant is the owner and possessor of the vehicle, a goods carriage vehicle HMV bearing No.AP-01-X-7676 on hire purchase agreement with HDFC Bank i.e., Opposite Party No.1 herein and the Complainant also got a Fitness Certificate so also permit of the vehicle. The Opposite Party No.2 insured the said vehicle at the instance of Opposite Party No.1. On 18.04.2014 at 8:30 P.M. the vehicle met with an accident while it was on the way from Parva to Pandarkavda road. One Sandeep Rathod was driving the vehicle and the steering was locked accidentally and turned turtle. The vehicle was loaded with coils. The vehicle was damaged in the accident and a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2014. Panchanama was conducted on the vehicle and police of Parava investigated the matter.

4. It is submitted that the Complainant could not get Fitness Certificate renewed and it was expired on 08.04.2014. When the matter was informed to Opposite Party No.2, they deputed a Surveyor for verification. Later the vehicle was shifted to Hyderabad. It is Complainant’s allegation that the Opposite Party No.2 repudiated the claim on the ground that there is Fitness Certificate of the vehicle and it is already expire at the time of accident. As per Section of the Motor Vehicle Act, 149 there is no necessity of Fitness Certificate and it does not amount to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The Opposite Party No.1 advanced the loan amount on Hire Purchase basis and got insured the vehicle because of its tie up with Opposite Party No.2 and the vehicle was insured by Opposite Party No.2 and the policy is in force. There is an omission and defect in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the complaint.

5. The Opposite Party No.1 called absent despite service of notice and set exparte.

6. The Opposite Party No.2 filed their written version stating that the Complainant’s vehicle bearing No.AP-01-X-7676 was insured with this Opposite Party as on the date of the accident. The said vehicle was plying on the road on the date of accident without possessing a valid and effective Fitness Certificate and the same is fundamental breach of contract betw