STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/19/329 UNITED INDIA INSU.CO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - A,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus M/S SWASTIK ROAD LIES PVT. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - A,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

UNITED INDIA INSU.CO.LTD.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

M/S SWASTIK ROAD LIES PVT. LTD.

DATED: 03/09/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 329 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 01.01.2019 passed in C.C.No. 308/2017 by District Commission, Gwalior)

MANAGER,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

REGIONAL OFFICE-PARYAWAS BHAWAN,

BHOPAL (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus M/S SWASTIK ROAD LINES PVT.LTD.

THROUGH DIRECTOR GAURAV, S/O SHRI O.P.JAIN, 38, NEW KHEDAPATI COLONY, GWALIOR 9M.P.) ... RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed On 03.09.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

The opposite party/appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited (for short insurance company) has filed this appeal against the order dated 01.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 308/2017 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2. Facts of the case in short as narrated by the complainant/respondent are that complainant company is engaged in transport business and complainant company's truck bearing registration number PB-65 N-9542 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 05.04.2012 to 04.04.2013 for IDV Rs.10,00,000/-. On 21.12.2012 the subject vehicle met with an accident in Punjab of which FIR was lodged with Police Station Sadar Patiala Punjab and the insurance company was also informed. An application for spot survey was given and thereafter the subject vehicle was brought to Gwalior. The claim was filed with the insurance company. The insurance company appointed Surveyor in the matter. After survey the subject vehicle got repaired in which he incurred Rs.10,00,000/- and the Surveyor considered the vehicle of total loss. It is alleged by the complainant that the insurance company did not pay the claim which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The opposite party-insurance company by filing reply to the complaint submitted that on receiving intimation, surveyor was appointed in the matter. The driver Vishal Shah, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having driving licence as per law of which intimation was given to the complainant on 27.01.2015. In different documents filed by the complaint different addresses were mentioned. The complainant's claim was closed as No Claim of which intimation was given to the complainant in which there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the insurance company. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-insurance company to pay Rs.5,50,325/- to the complainant towards damages caused to the vehicle. Interest @ 8% p.a. was also awarded from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 27.01.2015 till payment. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-insurance company argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that the learned District Commission has failed to consider that at the time of accident on