State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insu.Co.Ltd. vs Santosh Yadav on 5 June, 2023
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 933 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 20.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.58/2016 by District Commission, Tikamgarh) THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ... APPELLANT Versus SANTOSH YADAV. ... RESPONDENT. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR : PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER O R D E R 05.06.2023. Ms. Preetima Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Kalpana Verma, learned counsel the respondent. As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :
This appeal arises out of the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tikamgarh (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.58/2016, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and awarded compensation of Rs.3,41,359/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 29.09.2016. In addition compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and costs Rs.3,000/- has also been awarded.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Commission has committed error in deciding the complaint which was a premature complaint. She argued that in fact the respondent did not produce -2- the documents which were required for deciding his claim, including registration certificate, driving licence and other material documents which were sought from the respondent. In absence of those documents, the claim could not be decided. She also argued that the subject tractor was not registered and was being used for commercial purpose.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. During the course of the arguments, she has not disputed that the tractor was not registered. However, she has maintained that application for registration was made and as such there was sufficient compliance.
4. Be that as it may. Since the respondent has not produced the documents as sought, the insurance company could not decide the claim. Thus it seems that instead of producing the documents the complaint was filed and it was premature.
5. In the circumstances, the complaint appears to be filed prematurely, therefore we set-aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to submit all the necessary documents with a covering letter within 6 weeks from today raising the grounds for settling the claim. Thereafter, the insurance company shall examin the documents and decide the claim as may be submitted by the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the documents.
-3-6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr. Monika Malik) President Member