Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/23/1056

ANANDILAL VISHWAKARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY KUMAR SHAHANI

04 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1056 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 14.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.01/2022 by District Commission, Mandsaur)

 

ANANDILAL VISHWAKARMA,

S/O SHRI BADRILAL VISHWAKARMA,

R/O 212, ANNAPURNA CHOWK, VILLAGE-NAHARGARH,

TEHSIL-SITAMAU, DISTRICT-MANDSAUR (M.P.)                                                 … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE

    COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,

    INTERFACE BUILDING NO.16, 6^TH FLOOR, OFFICE NO.601

    & 602, NEW LINK ROAD, MALAD (W) MUMBAI-400 064.

 

2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE

    COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,

    COMMERCE HOUSE, 2^ND  FLOOR, 201/202,

    BUILDING NO.7, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)                   …. RESPONDENTS.  

 

 

BEFORE :

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

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                       

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Vijay Shahani, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Sanjeev Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On  04.07.2024)

 

         The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

           This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (for short ‘District Commission’) in

-2-

C.C.No.01/2022 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2.                Facts of the case in short are that the complainant’s JCB machine (excavator) bearing chassis number 2237955 and engine number 84260355 was insured with the opposite parties/respondents-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 17.12.2020 to 16.12.2021 for Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.28,80,000/- During the currency of the policy, on 22.06.2021 the subject vehicle turned down and suffered multiple damages of which intimation was given to the insurance company.  The insurance company appointed surveyor who also inspected the vehicle but ultimately the insurance company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 07.10.2021 on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the subject vehicle was carrying persons more than the permissible sitting capacity as also he did not possess the effective driving licence to drive JCB.

3.                Aggreived complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission which was dismissed by the District Commission by the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has erred in reaching to the conclusion that the driver of JCB machine did not possess valid and effiective driving licence to drive

-3-

excavator (JCB) at the time of accident. He argued that no such category of driving licence is mentioned in Motor Vehicles Act and in Central Motor Vehicle Rules. He has submitted that in support of his contention he has filed an application IA-2 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with certain documents. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

5.                Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company though supported the impugned order but has not objected to the said application filed along with the documents. He argued that at the time of accident the driver of the subject vehicle was carrying persons more than the permissible sitting capacity as also he did not possess the effective driving licence to drive JCB (excavator). JCB Model No.JS205 is having operating weight 20,500kg. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. He has submitted that in support of his contentions he has filed an application IA-1 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with certain documents including survey report, investigation report and brochure of JCB.

6.                Having regard to the aforesaid pleadings, we are of a considered view that the matter needs to be decided afresh after considering the newly documents filed by the parties in support of their respective contentions. In the circumstances, by setting aside the impugned order we remand the case to the District Commission for

-4-

deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law in the light of the newly filed documents.  The documents filed by the parties with the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC be sent to the District Commission after retaining copy of the same, along with the record.

7.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 05.08.2024.

8.                The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. All the points involved in the matter are kept open. Parties are at liberty to file any additional evidence, if any, in support of their respective contentions.

9.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is stands disposed of.  No order as to costs.

 

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

                  Acting President                      Member