M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.1157 OF 2024 (Arising out of order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Case.No.60/2021 by District Commission, Balaghat)

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH MANAGER – LEGAL, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN … APPELLANT.

Versus ANIL NAGESHWAR, RO GRAM CHICHTOLA, TEHSIL LANJJI, DISTT.BALAGHAT .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

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

Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri G.P.Upvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .06.2025)

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

This is an appeal by the opposite party /

appellant – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) directed against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Balaghat (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.60/2021, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by complainant / respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Bolero Car bearing registration no. MP50 – C – 3735. It was insured with the insurance company for a period w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. It is submitted that on 10.11.2017 the subject vehicle met with an accident, regarding which the Insurance Company was intimated. The complainant also started repairing the vehicle and paid certain amount in this regard. It is further submitted that when the complainant approached the Insurance Company with the bill for payment of Rs.4,10,715/-, same was not paid. Therefore, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint case is barred by limitation. In addition, it is submitted that the complainant had not provided requisite information / documents when the same were demanded from him vide letters issued on various dates. It is also submitted that the subject vehicle was being used for commercial purpose at the time of accident. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint is thus made.

4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay claim amount of Rs.2,86,817/- within a period of one month with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.08.2021 till payment. Additonally, compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the District Commission has failed to observe that the complaint case is barred by limitation. Admittedly the accident happened on 10.11.2017 and the complaint case was instituted on 11.08.2021. The complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel also stated that the complaint case was premature since claim was not decided by the Insurance Company. He further argued that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes at the time of accident. Also, the complainant did not provide requisite documents which were required for settlement of claim. It is also argued that the District Commission has awarded Rs.70,000/- in excess, which was already paid by the Insurance Company to the financer, who is a necessary party in the matter and has not been impleaded by the complainant. On all these grounds the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel referred to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Cicily Kallarackal vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) 1 and Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Auth., IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC); Judgements passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in cases of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Tara Singh,