Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/23/788

JAI KHATIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AKSHAY KHARE

26 Nov 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 788 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 03.05.2023 passed in C.C.No.165/2022 by District Commission, Chhatarpur)

 

JAI KHATEEK.                                                                                                     …         APPELLANT

 

                Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHHATARPUR & ORS.                              …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :      MEMBER

           

                                      O R D E R

26.11.2024

 

       Shri Akshay Khare, learned counsel for the appellant.

       Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari :

            The complainant/appellant being dissatisfied with the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatarpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.165/2022 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed with costs, has filed this appeal.

2.                Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the complainant had purchased a truck bearing registration number UP-70 CT-5815 for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The subject truck was insured with the opposite party insurance company for the period w.e.f. 04.11.2019 to 03.11.2020 for IDV Rs.14,50,000/-. The subject truck met with an accident on 24.04.2020 of which intimation was

-2-

given to the police on 29.04.2020 and the insurance company was also duly informed. The complainant incurred Rs.21,46,530/- in repairs of the vehicle. He argued that despite making claim, the insurance company did not pay the claim. He argued that the District Commission without considering the fact that the intimation of accident was given to the police on 29.04.2020 erred in dismissing the complaint. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

3.                On the other hand learned counsel for respondents/opposite parties insurance company supporting the impugned order argued that  the District Commission has committed no error in dismissing the complaint. He submits that though the complainant is the owner of the subject vehicle but he is not running the same for earning his livelihood instead he is running a meat shop. His cousin who is a transporter is running the subject vehicle. He argued that there is delay in lodging FIR and informing the insurance company which amounts to violation of policy terms and conditions and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company.

4.                We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and the impugned order. We find that the complainant has pleaded that his subject

-3-

vehicle which was insured with the insurance company met with an accident on 24.04.2020 on way from Sagar to Chhatarpur of which intimation was given the police on 29.04.2020.  From the record we find that there is a copy of application dated nil (A-3) addressed to the SHO, Police Station, Bada Malhara stating that his subject vehicle met with an accident on 24.04.2020, however there is no seal and signature of any police official that who received the same. Also from the documents filed on record we do not find that when did accident took place, when the complainant informed the police and the insurance company.

5.                Thus, we find that the complainant failed to file any proof of accident and in such circumstances, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26.03.2021 (A-1) and while doing so has not committed any deficiency in service.  The District Commission has also nowhere erred in dismissing the complaint.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.  Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby affirmed.

7.                In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                     (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   

                   Acting President                         Member