UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 8TH FLOOR, KANCHANJUNGA BUILDING, 18 BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI Vs. SURINDER KUMAR S/O SH. DHARAM CHAND, R/O ST NO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 8.2.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.481/2008, Surinder Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. , vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana on 3.4.2008, dismissing the consumer complaint filed by the present respondent, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Surinder Kumar is the owner of a truck, bearing registration no. HR 17A 6024, model 2004 which was insured with the petitioner/OP insurance company, vide policy no.200601/31/04/062/4, valid from 27.3.2005 to 26.3.2006. The said vehicle is stated to have met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy, for which a claim was lodged with the OP insurance company. As stated in the consumer complaint, the claim was not settled despite the complainant having provided the relevant information to the insurance company. The complainant stated that he had spent more than Rs.2 lakhs for repair of the vehicle and hence, the insurance company should be directed to reimburse the amount claimed by the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000.00 as compensation for mental agony etc. and Rs.11,000.00 as cost of litigation.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP insurance company by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the accident took place on 5.2.2006, but the fitness certificate for the vehicle had already expired on 11.4.2005. The surveyor has also brought out in his report that the fitness certificate was upto 11.4.2005 only. The insurance company had asked the complainant to explain the cutting on the fitness date in the registration certificate of the vehicle, but he could not give a proper reply to their letters. The insurance company stated that the claim was not payable in the absence of the fitness certificate.