Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/903/2015

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.Through B.M. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yakub Khan S/o Safeda Khan - Opp.Party(s)

Vimal Sharma

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 903 /2015

 

Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. E-8 EPIP Sitapura Distt. Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Yakub Khan s/o Safeda Khan r/o Siroli Kala Tehsil Tijara Distt. Alwar.

 

 

Date of Order 11.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Vimal Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr.Ramchandra Singh counsel for the respondents

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Alwar dated 30.6.2015 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

 

The only contention of the appellant is that accident was taken place on 9.6.2013 and on the date of accident the vehicle was not having any fitness certificate hence, claim is not payable.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the order of the court below and claim has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

A fitness certificate has been submitted which is valid upto 16.6.2014 but for the same fees has been deposited on 17.6.2013 meaning thereby before 17.6.2013 the vehicle was not having fitness certificate. Earlier the fitness of the vehicle

3

 

was expired on 2.5.2013 which clearly shows that on the date of accident the vehicle was not having any fitness certificate and the appellant has rightly relied upon IV (2006C) CPJ 62 (NC) ( Aeroflot Soviet Airlines Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) where the court has held as under:

 

“ It is admitted position that on the date when the vehicle was set on fire there was no valid certificate of fitness, account of which this vehicle could not have been brought on road, which is a clear case of violation of conditions of warranty of the policy in view of which we see no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the State Commission.”

 

In view of the above when the vehicle was not having any valid fitness certificate, it was a breach of policy condition and the claim has rightly been repudiated by the appellant. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the order of the court below dated 30.6.2015 is set aside.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

nm