M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2095 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 17.09.2014 passed in C. C. No.429/2013 by District Commission, Rewa)

1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

    THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

    NEAR PARIJAT HOTEL, REWA ROAD,

    SATNA (M.P.)     

2. MANAGER,

    THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

    BRANCH OFFICE-OPPOSITE HANUMAN MANDIR,

    SIRMOUR CHOURAHA, REWA (M.P.)                                                                               ….       APPELLANTS.

Versus

NARAYANDEEN GUPTA,

S/O SHRI GANESH PRASAD GUPTA,

R/O VILLAGE & POST- GUDWA, TEHSIL-BYOHARI,

DISTRICT-SHAHDOL (M.P.)                                                                                                      ….    RESPONDENT.   

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :    PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :    MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Ms. Preetima Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri S. R. Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                                     O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 22.10.2021)

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

                  This appeal by the opposite parties /appellants is filed against the order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 429/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been partly allowed and the opposite parties-insurance company are directed to pay Rs.2,05,919/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of repudiation of insurance claim of the complainant i.e. 22.03.2013 till its realization. Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and cost has also been awarded.

-2-

2.                     Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that he is the owner of truck bearing registration no. MP-18 G-1978 which was insured with the opposite party-the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) for the period from 10.03.2011 to 09.03.2012.  On 17.10.2011 during currency of the policy period, his truck dashed against a tree and got damaged. The complainant filed a claim with the insurance company claiming a sum of Rs.3,25,757/-, which was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 22.03.2013 on the ground that the subject vehicle was running without permit at the time of the accident. The complainant therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party, filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                     The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the subject vehicle at the time of accident was running without having any valid permit and therefore, its claim is not payable.

4.                     Heard. Perused the record.

5.                     Learned counsel for the opposite parties/appellants argued that the District Commission has committed error in passing the impugned order by ignoring the important aspect that as per Motor Vehicle Act, commercial vehicle cannot run on road without having valid permit. The respondent’s vehicle unladen weight was 2200 kg, but it was running without permit, therefore, its insurance claim is not payable.

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that as per Motor Vehicle Act, the permit is required under the category of respondent’s vehicle only when its weight exceeds 3000 kg, but the respondent’s vehicle which was not carrying goods at the time of accident. Its unladen weight was 2200 kg, and thus it could run without permit. He argued that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order which deserves to be maintained. 

-3-

7.