STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 11.10.2022 Date of Final Hearing: 30.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.05.2025 SC/5/A/194/2022 United India Insurance Company Limited (O.P. No. 1 and 2)

through its Regional Manager, Regional Office Ratan Palace, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun (Through: Sh. Suresh Gautam, Advocate)

…… Appellant Versus

1. Sh. Jagjeet Singh S/o Sh. Jarnail Singh Manager, S.K. Public School Tehsil Khatima, District Udhamsingh Nagar (Uttarakhand)

(Through: None)

2. Assistant Regional Transport Officer Rudrapur, District Udhamsingh Nagar (Uttarakhand)

(Through: None)

…… Respondents Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udhamsingh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 31 of 2019, styled as Sh. Jagjeet Singh Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that vehicle No. UK06-W-8640 was registered with respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 3 and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant / opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 (insurance company) vide policy No. 0826023117P112286623 effective from 28.11.2017 to 27.11.2018. At the time of registration of the vehicle, it was informed by respondent No. 2 that the fitness of the vehicle is valid upto 17.07.2027. The insured vehicle met with an accident near Majhola, District Udhamsingh Nagar on 30.08.2018, intimation whereof was immediately given to the insurance company and after completing all the formalities, claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- was submitted by the complainant with the insurance company vide claim No. 0826023118C050207001. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the validity of eight seater new vehicle is valid for two years’ and on the date of the accident, the fitness of the vehicle was not valid, whereas the fitness of the vehicle is valid till 17.07.2027. The insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant, therefore, the complainant has to suffer physical, mental and financial agony, for which the insurance company and the Registering Authority are responsible. The complainant has dispatched a legal notice dated 07.02.2019 through his counsel to the insurance company as well as Registering Authority, but the same was not replied. Thus, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The appellant – insurance company has filed written statement before the District Commission, alleging that there is neither any contract between the complainant and the insurance company, nor the complainant has any locus standi to file the consumer complaint. It was also pleaded that M/s S.K. Public School had got the vehicle Mahindra & Mahindra Maxximo Mini Van insured with Pilibhit Branch of the insurance company vide policy No. 0826023117P112286623 having validity from 28.11.2017 to 27.11.2018. After receiving information about the accident, the investigator was immediately deputed by the insurance company. The vehicle so insured is 8 (eight) seater vehicle, the fitness whereof is to be renewed on yearly basis and the said vehicle can not be plied without valid and effective fitness. In the absence of valid fitness, the insured is not entitled to any claim and the same was rightly turned down. Therefore, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The respondent No. 2 also submitted its written statement before the District Commission, alleging that the subject vehicle was registered in the name of Manager, S.K. Public School, Majhola, Khatima, District Udhamsingh Nagar and the sa