Order No.  3  dt.  21/03/2017

The complainant filed this case with the allegation that the complainant insured the vehicle with the o.p.no.1 and the said vehicle met with an accident on 21.09.2016 and after the accident the complainant submitted the bill for reimbursement of the repairing of the said vehicle.

            The o.p. repudiated the claim of the complainant with the allegation that the terms and conditions of the policy was violated by the complainant therefore repudiation was made on the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for reimbursement of the  damage caused to the said vehicle.

            On perusal of the documents filed by the complainant as well as the petition of complaint appears that the vehicle met with an accident on 21.09.2016 within the district of Nadia immediately after the said incident the complainant did not lodge any FIR at nearby  police station or the o.p. was not informed regarding the said accident. The o.ps after consideration of  the terms and condition of the policy and making investigation  came to the conclusion that the owner of the car used the vehicle for commercial purpose not for private use for which the policy was made.

            Since the complainant failed to prove with the document namely FIR and the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the policy for which the car was insured  thereby we hold that there was no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company. Accordingly we hold that the case is not maintainable against the o.p. and the same is dismissed.