1

A 240/2019

Date of filing :25.01.2019

Date of order : 29.08.2022

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. :240 OF 2019

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 90OF 2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR.

Nanasaheb Marotirao Patil,

R/o Korangala, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.

APPELLANT

VERSUS

Divisional Manager,

New Assurance Company Ltd,.

Divisional Office, Gaytri Kripa, Chandra nagar,

Latur.

RESPONDENT

CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

Present : Adv.A.K.Jawalkar for appellant,

Adv.S.R.Bodade for respondent.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 29/08/2022)

Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of District Forum, Latur in

C.C.No.90/2017 decided on 03.12.2018 the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. The appellant is the complainant, the respondent is the opponent

insurance company in said complaint. They are hereinafter referred to as

‘complainant’ and ‘opponent’ as per their status in their complaint. The

2

A 240/2019

District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is hereinafter referred to as

‘District Forum’ for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of complainant that he is an agriculturist. He purchased

tractor and trolley for agricultural purpose. ARTO registered the tractor and

trolley and given bearing no. MH24-L-4722 and MH24-E-0670. He insured

the tractor and trolley towards respondent. The respondent issued policy

bearing no. 16120031150100001760. The policy period was 28.05.2015 to

27.05.2016. The premium amount was of Rs.8.524/-. On 23.06.2015 at

about 4.45 pm appellant’s driver Premchand Mahadik was driving the

tractor and he was proceeding from his field when suddenly some students

came on the road. The driver of tractor suddenly applied the break, duo to

that the tractor turtled and collapsed into a ditch. Due to the said incident

appellant’s tractor got damaged. The said fact was intimated to the

respondent as well as police. At the time of accident the tractor was

attached with trolley. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and conducted the

survey as well as police was prepared spot survey. As per the direction of

the appellant repaired the vehicle. The authorised service centre repaired

the tractor. The repair amount comes to Rs. 1,19,133/- including labour

charges. Appellant has given all the documents and bills along with claim

form to the respondent and claimed damages. The respondent illegally

repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of

the appellant has not possessed valid driving license. So appellant filed

consumer complaint before District Consumer Commission.

3

A 240/2019

The opponent insurance company has repudiated the complainant’s

claim to avoid the liability of payment under insurance policy, observing

deficiency in service the complainant has filed the consumer complaint

before the District Forum seeking directions of District Forum to opponent

insurance company to pay amount of Rs.1,29,133/- along with 18%

interest. The amount of Rs.10,000/- towards cost also sought.

6. The opponent insurance company appeared before the District Forum

and filed written version and submitted that, at the time of the alleged

incident the vehicle tractor and trolley were being driven by the driver

Premchand. As per the driving license of Premchand, he has been allowed

only to drive the tractor. The tractor and trolley are not being allowed to be

driven by him. So, he is not eligible to drive the vehicle tractor and trolley.

The vehicle was insured with this respondent under the category of

commercial package policy. As being the license was not valid for driving

the vehicle tractor and trolley, this respondent has rightly repudiated the

claim of the complainant with justifiable reasons and with due application of

mind. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document