M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1341/2016 The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Regional Office –

Paryawas Bhawan Arera Hills Bhopal (M.P.). ... Appellant VERSUS.

Shaikh Harfhan S/o Sheikh Sattar R/o Rambagh Mohalla District Chhatarpur (M.P.) ... Respondent BEFORE;

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

MS. PREETIMA SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

SHRI DEEPESH SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.

O R D E R

( 26.03.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Hon’ble Member, Dr. Monika Malik.

This appeal by the appellant/opposite party-New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), assails the order dated 9.8.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatarpur (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 73/F/2015, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant towards repair of the vehicle, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment, within 30 days. Rs.3000/- as compensation with Rs.2,000/- as costs has also been awarded.

2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that complainant’s truck bearing registration No. MP-16 H-0193 was insured with the Insurance Company under a package policy. On 4.1.2015. the truck got damaged in an accident. Intimation regarding the same was given to the Insurance Company, who appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Insurance Company, however, repudiated the claim filed by the complainant on the ground that on the date of accident, the insured vehicle was not having authorization of permit from the RTO. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the Insurance Company, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint and in its reply before the District Commission admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it. It is submitted that the complainant did not submit the authorised permit from the RTO, which is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is thus submitted that there is no deficiency in service on part of the Insurance Company and prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the subject vehicle was being plied without having valid permit, which is not only breach of policy conditions but also fundamental breach of law. Various letters and reminders were sent to the complainant for authorisation but he failed to submit the same. This proves that the subject vehicle was though having National Permit but was not having authorisation of the State. Also no fitness certificate for relevant duration was there. Date of accident is 4.1.2015 but the fitness was renewed on 26.2.2015. She thus submitted that the District Commission has erred in ignoring the aforesaid fact and prayed that impugned order be set aside

6. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order and argued that the claim could not be denied in totality for want of authorisation. He referred judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Binod Kumar Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., passed in SLP (Civil) No. 13060 of 2020) and argued that authorisation fee was required to be paid only when the subject vehicle was moving out of the State. He hence prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

7. We find that the Insurance Company vide letter dated 26.6.2015 has denied payment of claim amount on the ground that they sent letters dated 13.5.2015 and 18.6.2015 to the complainant, seeking authorisation of the subject vehicle, which has not been supplied by him till date. The claim file was, therefore closed as ‘n