News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 15
February 18, 2026 : In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur has allowed an appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited and set aside a district commission order that had directed the insurer to compensate a vehicle owner for fire damage.
The case arose from a dispute between the insurance company and Bilaspur resident Mohd. Lukman over a claim relating to his commercial vehicle, a Mahindra Jeeto (registration number CG-10-AC-9232). The vehicle was insured for ₹3 lakh for the period from October 11, 2020, to October 10, 2021.
According to the record, on November 18, 2020, Lukman was transporting readymade garments in the vehicle when it reportedly broke down near a village. He had the vehicle towed and parked safely near a house under construction before returning home. Around 3 am, he was informed that the vehicle had caught fire. Fire services were alerted and the blaze was extinguished, but the vehicle and goods were severely damaged.
Lukman informed the insurer and filed a claim. However, the insurance company sought copies of the vehicle’s fitness certificate and permit. While Lukman submitted a receipt showing payment of the fitness renewal fee in October 2020, the insurer maintained that no valid fitness certificate had been issued at the time of the incident.
The District Consumer Commission in Bilaspur partly allowed Lukman’s complaint in April 2025. It directed the insurer to pay ₹2.99 lakh after deducting ₹1,000 as compulsory excess, along with 9 percent annual interest from the date of filing the complaint, ₹10,000 for mental agony, and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
Challenging this order, United India Insurance argued that the vehicle did not have a valid fitness certificate on the date of the fire. The previous fitness certificate had expired on January 21, 2020. Although the owner paid renewal fees in October 2020, no fresh certificate had been issued before the incident in November 2020.
The insurer also contended that the benefit of the central government’s COVID-19 relaxation circular, which extended the validity of certain transport documents, did not apply in this case because the fitness certificate had already expired before the eligible extension period.
After reviewing the documents and hearing both sides, the State Commission examined Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It noted that a transport vehicle without a valid fitness certificate cannot be deemed validly registered for use on the road. The Commission also referred to precedents of the National Consumer Commission holding that operating a transport vehicle without a valid fitness certificate constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions, entitling the insurer to repudiate the claim.
The Commission observed that although the owner had applied for renewal and paid the prescribed fee, the fact remained that no valid fitness certificate existed on the date of the fire. Running a commercial vehicle without a valid fitness certificate was a violation of statutory requirements as well as insurance policy terms.
Concluding that the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim, the State Commission set aside the April 21, 2025 order of the District Commission. As a result, Lukman’s consumer complaint was dismissed.
Case Reference : Appeal No. SC/22/FA/348/2025: Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Lukman
