(1.) The complainant/respondent purchased a vehicle bearing Registration No.CG-16A-1268 and got the same insured with the petitioner company for the period from 12.10.2011 to 11.10.2012. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 07.03.2012, during subsistence of the policy, on intimation being given to the insurer a surveyor was appointed and carried an inspection of the accidental vehicle. The complainant thereafter allegedly took the vehicle to a workshop and paid a sum of Rs. 2,12,950/- on its repair. The insurance company however repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle did not possess the requisite fitness certificate at the time it met with an accident. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 2,12,950/- along with an interest etc.
(2.) The complaint was resisted by the insurance company and it was stated in the reply that as against the permit to carry 32 passengers + 1 driver, the vehicle was carrying 40 passengers at the time it met with the accident. It was further stated in the reply that though the surveyor appointed by the insurance company had assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 1,80,156/-, his claim was rightly repudiated on account of gross violation of policy terms and conditions by the complainant. It was also stated in the reply filed by the insurance company that on investigation their investigator, it was revealed that the fitness certificate submitted by the insured did not pertain to vehicle in question but it pertained to another vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-15AB-0221 and thus, the vehicle in question did not have a fitness certificate on the date it met with the accident.
(3.) Vide its order dated 22.03.2013, the District Forum directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,117/- to the complainant as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. and also awarded Rs. 4,000/- towards mental and physical agony along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.