UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JITENDRA SURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner ) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, MP(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) whereby it has dismissed an appeal filed by the Petitioner and confirmed the award passed by the District Forum in favour of one Jitendra Surya, Respondent in this case.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Respondent had insured a Maruti Esteem vehicle with the Petitioner Insurance Company since 2001. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 30.4.2004 the said vehicle met with an accident and survey of the vehicle was got done by the Petitioner Insurance Company. Respondent states that he had spent about Rs. 75,000 in repairing the said vehicle. He thereafter filed a claim with the Petitioner which was rejected without giving any reasons. Respondent thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency of service, mental agony and loss, etc. and seeking Rs. 75,000 towards the claim amount and Rs. 5,000 as compensation.

(3.) The Petitioner denied the above contentions and stated that it was informed of the accident 5 days after it occurred and the claim form by the Respondent was sent after two month which was incomplete because it did not include the registration and fitness certificate, driving licence etc. and despite reminders even after three months no documents were furnished. Therefore, a no claim letter was sent to the Respondent. Respondent requested for reconsideration of his claim and when the claim was re-opened and investigated, after receipt of documents, it came to light that the vehicle of the Respondent was registered as a Deluxe Taxi whereas he has got it insured as a private vehicle. At the time of accident, the said vehicle was being used for commercial purposes and driven by a driver who did not have a commercial license. This was in clear contravention of both the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and terms and condition of the insurance policy. Further, the Respondent filed a premature complaint while the matter was still under investigation.