Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/20/318

SURESH KUMAR TRIPATHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA INSU.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 21.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.40/2019 by District Commission, Satna)

 

SURESH KUMAR TRIPATHI,

S/O SHRI ANUSUIYA PRASAD TRIPATHI,

R/O MARUTI NAGAR, WARD NO.1, GALI NO.5,

TEHSIL-RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.)                                            … APPELLANT.

 

                        Versus

 

MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,

REWA ROAD, SATNA DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.)                                                      …. RESPONDENT.   

 

BEFORE :

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

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

               

             Shri Sandeep Guru, learned counsel for the appellant.

             Ms. Chitra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 18.09.2024)

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

                        This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.40/2019 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.

2.                Heard. Perused the record.

3.                Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/appellant submits that the complainant's vehicle Bolero bearing registration number MP-19 T-4080 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 27.03.2015 to 26.03.2016 for IDV Rs.5,78,900/-. It is

-2-

submitted by the complainant that on 04.09.2015 the subject vehicle was robbed and the driver was murdered by unknown persons of which intimation was given to the police station Majhgawan and the insurance company. FR was executed in the matter on 30.12.2016. The claim filed with the insurance company was repudiated by the insurance company on 19.09.2018. The complainant therefore approached the District Commission seeking IDV of the subject vehicle with interest, compensation and costs. He argued that the District Commission instead of making direction for payment of IDV of the subject vehicle directed the opposite party insurance company to pay 75% of the IDV to the complainant on non-standard basis with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs Rs.2,000/-.  He argued that the impugned order deserves to be modified to the extent that the opposite party-insurance company be directed to pay IDV of the vehicle Rs.5,78,900/- with interest, compensation and costs.

4.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent insurance company argued that the driver Rambabu Tripathi, who was driving the subject vehicle at the time of incident was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and since there was fundamental breach of policy conditions and Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 19.09.2018 and while doing so, there has been

-3-

no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. He argued that the complainant was not entitled to get any relief. He argued that the District Commission did not consider the aforesaid fact and had awarded 75% of IDV of the vehicle on non-standard basis. He therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal. 

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record as also the impugned order we find that the subject vehicle was insured with the insurance company for the period w.e.f. 27.03.2015 to 26.03.2016 (C-6) and during the insurance cover on 04.09.2015, the subject vehicle was robbed by unknown persons and they murdered the driver of the subject vehicle. The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.09.2018 (C-1) on the ground that the driver Rambabu Tripathi, who was driving the subject vehicle at the time of incident was not having valid and effective driving licence.

6.                From the record, we find that the District Commission holding that though the driver was not having valid driving licence but the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant in toto and has awarded 75% of IDV of the vehicle on non-standard basis to the complainant with interest, compensation and costs. However, the District Commission ignored this important fact that as per Section 3 of Motor

-4-

Vehicles Act, 1988 licence is necessary to drive the vehicle on road and without licence driving the vehicle is fundamental breach of the Motor Vehicles Act as also the policy terms and conditions. The District Commission without considering the licence, its authenticity passed the impugned order. The complainant did not file the licence of the driver Rambabu Tripathi. All these facts were brought to the knowledge of the District Commission but we find that the District Commission has not discussed this issue regarding licence and this point has been left undealt in the impugned order.

7.                Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, we are of considered view that the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the District Commission, for decision afresh, in accordance with law after directing the parties to produce the licence of the driver and the report of the RTO regarding licence and considering all the points involved in the matter and recording finding on all the issues. 

8.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 29.10.2024.

9.                The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.

 

 

-5-

10.              All the issues involved in the matter are kept open. Parties are at liberty to file additional evidence, if any, in support of their contentions, 11.              Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove shall not come in the way of the District Commission, while passing an order.

12.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. However, no order as to costs.

 

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

                      Acting President                              Member