Back
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No. 1522 / 2015.
Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Seoni (M.P.).
…. APPELLANT.
Versus
Smt. Suman Runiza,
w/o Shri Kailash Runza,
Seoni (M.P.).
…. RESPONDENT.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of
O R D E R
Order
02.11.2022
Ms. Chitra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri G. S. Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
This appeal arises out of the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Seoni (for short the
‘District Commission’) in CC No.57 /2014 whereby the District Commission
has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent / complainant and
awarded compensation by applying the principle of non-standard basis as
the vehicle in question was not having valid fitness certificate.
- 2 -
2. Briefly stated, the respondent had insured his Maxicab Bolero
vehicle having registration No. M.P. 22 T / 0436 with the appellant /
Insurance Company. The said bolero vehicle met with an accident on
8.4.2015. Undisputedly, on the date of incident of accident the said vehicle
was not having fitness certificate and the fitness certificate which was earlier
in force had expired and thereafter fresh fitness certificate was taken after
the date of accident.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the District
Commission has committed error in holding that though the vehicle was not
having valid fitness certificate the breach is not fundamental breach of policy
condition. According to the learned counsel for the appellant such breach
of not having fitness certificate would be a fundamental breach as has been
held by this Commission in various matters including in FA No.2109/2012
(M. M. Arjaria Vs. United India Insurance Co.) decided on 27.7.2022 and
as such the impugned order passed by the District Commission is liable to
be set-aside.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
/ complainant supported the impugned order. He submits that the vehicle
was not an old model vehicle and it was in perfect condition therefore
-
3 -
the District Commission has committed no error in applying the principle of
‘non-standard basis’ by placing reliance on the judgement passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Amlendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., II (2010) C.P.J.9 (SC).
5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned
order as also the record.
6. So far as the judgement on which reliance is placed by the District
Commission Amlendu Sahoo (supra) in our considered view the same is
misplaced as in the case of Amalendu Sahoo (supra) the alleged breach
of policy condition is about limitation as to use. In the said case the insured
was found to have breached the condition as to the mode of use of the
insured vehicle. The allegation was that the vehicle was being used for hire
and as per the policy condition such use was not permitted, whereas in the
present case undisputedly, on the date of accident the vehicle was not
having fitness certificate. In case of such breach of policy condition this
Commission by placing reliance on the judgement passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Sushil
Kumar Godara (Civil Appeal No.5887 of 2021 decided on 30.9.2021 as
also the order passed by the National Commission in the case of Aeroflot
Soviet Airlines versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2006) CPJ
- 4 -
62 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Meenakshi Jarial, II
(2016) CPJ 53 (NC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Valsa George
& Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 116 (NC), Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Anr. Versus Chandan Malhotra, III (2018) CPJ 99 (NC) and The
Manager, The United Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sri B. Ugandar, 2010
(
