State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Gen. Insu.Co. vs Mayank Singh on 23 April, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MADHYA PRADESH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/17/1407
SHRIRAM GEN. INSU.CO.
PRESENT ADDRESS - E 8, RICO , INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN,MADHYA PRADESH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
MAYANK SINGH
PRESENT ADDRESS - GRAM NAI GADI, DIST. REWA.,MADHYA PRADESH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
SHRIRAM GEN. INSU.CO.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MAYANK SINGH
DATED: 23/04/2026
ORDER
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 31.05.2017 passed in C.C.No.226/2016 by District Commission, Rewa) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
E-8, REECO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN ... APPELLANT.
Versus
MAYANK SINGH BHADORIA
S/O SHRI H. S. BHADORIA,
R/O VILLAGE-NAI GADI, DISTRICT-REWA (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT.
BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishnu Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER (Passed On 23.04.2026) Per Say Justice SunitaYadav, President:
This is an appeal by the opposite party/appellant-Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'insurance company') against the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (for short 'District Commission) in C.C.No.226/2016 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') has been allowed.
2. In short, facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that complainant's truck bearing registration number MP-17 -2- HH-0554 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 27.08.2015 to 26.08.2016. During the insurance cover, on 08.04.2016 the subject vehicle on its way from Shilong to Jalgaon at Jaunpur Varanasi, UP near railway crossing came in touch with electricity wire and caught fire due to which the truck and the loaded goods were got damaged. The intimation was given to the insurance company who in turn got the spot survey and final survey done. However, the claim filed with the opposite party-insurance company was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of violation of policy conditions. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company filed a complaint before the District Commission.
3. The opposite party-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission has submitted that it has no branch office at Rewa. On intimation being received, the surveyor was appointed in the matter, however, the complainant failed to provide requisite documents to the surveyor. The investigator appointed in the matter in his investigation report has mentioned that incident occured due to height of goods loaded more than the prescribed height. The complainant has not filed any documents nor bills regarding repairs. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
-3-
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed that the complainant give possession of the burnt truck to the opposite party of which receipt be given by the opposite party to the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite party- insurance company shall pay Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.20,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded. Hence, this appeal by the insurance company.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant in written arguments as also in oral arguments submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that the District Commission has wrongly held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ignoring the fact that notice was never received by the opposite party/appellant-insurance company. The complainant/respondent with malafide intention mentioned the branch office of the insurance company at Rewa and this aspect has not been considered by the District Commission. It is further argued that the truck was overloaded which has been proved by the report of the Surveyor and the Investigator but the District Commission has not considered the documents and arguments advanced on behalf of the insurance company. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order being erroneous be set-aside. -4-
6. He placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anokhi Devi 2016 (4) CPR 172 (NC), Oreintal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tara Singh (Through LRs) 2016 (4) CPR 170 (NC), Assistant Engineer (O & M) & Anr Vs Shri Ganganagar Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 198 (NC), Punjab National Bank & Ors Vs Jayanti Computer Systems & Ors. III (2017) CPJ 322 (NC), Kancharla Padmavathi Vs Shriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd. IV (2017) CPJ 23 (NC), Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Beena Raghav III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC), United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Vs East Indian Produce Ltd. & Anr I (2015) CPJ 409 (NC) and in Revision Petition No. 429 of 2017 (Aman Kapor Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 17.04.2017 in support of his contentions.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent by submitting written arguments as also orally argued that the District Commission after considering the evidentiary material available on record has rightly passed the impugned order in accordance with law as the insurance company failed to prove the grounds of repudiation.
8. Heard, and perused the written arguments and record.
-5-
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-insurance company submited that the appellant-insurance company has no branch office at Rewa as also the policy in question was not issued by the Rewa branch of the insurance company, therefore, learned District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In this regard perusal of record indicates that notice sent to the opposite party/appellant-Shriram General Finance Company Limited having its branch office at Rewa by registered AD post through Branch Manager, by registered AD post which has not been received back by the District Commission to appear on 14.09.2016. However, on 14.09.2016 Pramod Kumar Pandya, Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party/appellant-insurance company and has also filed vakalatnama, therefore, the District Commission has not erred in holding that the notice was received by the insurance company and has been represented by counsel. The opposite party/appellant has failed to explain that if notice was not served on the appellant-insurance company at its address in Rewa, how the Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party-insurance company on the very next date. Also, the Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party/appellant- insurance company never objected nor raised any objection that the insurance company has no office at Rewa and they were not received any -6- notice. In view of the above, the District Commission has not erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
10. As per the case of the opposite party/appellant the truck was overloaded and the height of the goods loaded in the truck was more than the prescribed limit as per Motor Vehicles Act and that was the reason that because of the broom loaded in the truck caught fire after touching the electricity wires at Railway crossing. The opposite party/appellant has filed survey report and investigation to support the above defence, however, in investigation report filed by the insurance company, investigator has not mentioned the height of the body of the truck, therefore, the conclusion that the height of the truck was more than the prescribed height is not having any substance. In survey report also, it is not mentioned that the surveyor has inspected the truck and took measurement of the truck. As per investigator report, the investigator after visit of police station and taking statement of the driver held that said accident is true and genuine.
11. In view of the above, the survey report does not help the appellant- insurance company. In the investigation report also the investigator has observed that during investigation he had no opportunity to provide details of the vehicle as the vehicle was not lying at the spot. Thus, it is apparent that Surveyor or Investigator do not take measurement -7- of the vehicle to ascertain the height of the truck. The insurance company merely on the basis of presumptions concluded that the truck was overloaded. The goods loaded in the truck were also not weighed to prove that the truck was overloaded beyond its capacity.
12. In view of the above discussion, the opposite party/appellant-insurance company has failed to prove the grounds of repudiation and as per settled law the burden is on the insurance company to prove the grounds of repudiation of claim. Therefore, repudiation of claim by the insurance company is found to be erroneous.
13. In the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in Anokhi Devi (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company it is held that repudiation of claim is justified if the vehicle in question is overloaded with goods, however, in the instant case, the insurance company has failed to prove that the truck was overloaded, therefore this case does not support the appellant-insurance company. The other decisions except Beena Raghav (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts and do not help the appellant-insurance company.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that Spot surveyors and final surveyors though appointed by the insurance company under statutory provisions but they are independent authorities and it is well settled that -8- the insurance claim can only be settled on the basis of survey report unless it was challenged by cogent evidence. Here in the instant matter, the complainant has not challenged the survey report by filing cogent evidence, therefore without any reason, the surveyor's report cannot be discarded.
15. Hon'ble National Commission in IffcoTokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Beena Raghav III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs East Indian Produce Limited & Anr, I (2015) CPJ 409 (NC) has held that 'In terms of Section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 the surveyor was an independent professional engaged by the insurance company to assess the loss suffered by the complainant with respect to his vehicle. The report prepared by the Surveyor is of a significant and evidentiary value cannot be ignored and dismissed as such by saying that the assessed loss cannot be considered trustworthy, without giving valid reasons.
16. In view of the settled position of law, the surveyor's report cannot be brushed aside unless it is proved otherwise. In the instant case the Surveyor & Loss Assessor R. N. Pande in his survey report has assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.5,40,050/-. Thus in view of the above discussion this Commission is of a considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the amount as assessed by the Surveyor only and not -9- Insured Declared Vale as awarded by the District Commission. We find that the District Commission has gravely erred in allowing the claim made by the complainant to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/- against the assessment made by the surveyor for Rs.5,40,050/- without any basis.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the impugned order deserves to be modified to the extent that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5,40,050/- as assessed by the surveyor. Accordingly, the insurance company is directed to pay Rs.5,40,050/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order of the District Commission till payment within a period of two months. Rest of the directions regarding payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- shall remain unaltered.
18. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order this appeal stands partly allowed. No order as to costs of this appeal.
(Justice SunitaYadav) (Dr. Monika Malik)
President Member
..................J
SUNITA YADAV
PRESIDENT
..................J
DR. MONIKA MALIK
MEMBER