Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/27

Prem Saw - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Kumar Aukouri

01 Apr 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to pay insured amount Rs. 4,71,638/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 16.01.2016 and for payment of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation and litigation cost respectively to the complainant.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased Bolero Maxy Truck on 25.11.2015 from Model Fuel Pvt. Ltd. Dhanbad which was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. valid from 16.10.2015 to 15.02.2016  and he applied for registration of the vehicle concerned in the office of D.T.O. Bokaro on 26.11.2015. Further case is that D.T.O. Bokaro has send a letter to finance co. for verification on which finance co. gave consent on 26.01.2016 , meanwhile in between the night of 15/16.01.2016 said vehicle was stolen away from the front of the house of the complainant where it was parked. Further case is that in respect to theft of the vehicle Petarwar P.S. Case No. 09/2016 was registered in which final form has been submitted by the  Police mentioning therein that occurrence is true but clueless. Information regarding theft of the vehicle was also  given to the insurance co. and on demand complainant handed over the papers as required for payment of claim amount. It is further case that said vehicle was financed by Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Petarwar by which pressure to pay the installment is being created on the complainant and interest is being mounted. Inspite of repeated request insurance co. refused to pay the insured amount thereafter, legal notice served having no impact, hence this case has been filed with above mentioned prayer.
3.   O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 appeared and they have filed joint W.S. mentioning therein that case is not maintainable and repudiation of the claim is valid,  there is no cause of action for the case accordingly case is liable to be dismissed. Contents of para 1,2,3,4&5 of the complaint petition have not been specifically denied hence as per law of pleadings those contents will be treated as admitted facts. Contents of para 6 to 10 of the complaint petition have been denied and it is mentioned that due to negligence on the part of the complainant alleged theft was occurred. Further it is case of the O.Ps. that on the day of occurrence vehicle was not registered hence as per section 39 of Motor  Vehicles Act 1988 the driving of the vehicle without registration or permit on public place or other places is illegal hence claim has been rightly repudiated.
4.   W.S. has also been filed by O.P. No.4 Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Petarwar Branch, Bokaro mentioning therein that this O.P. has sanctioned Rs. 3,00,000/- as term loan on 24.01.2015 to the complainant for purchase of the vehicle and after its purchase complainant himself applied for registration of the said vehicle with intimation to the Bank concerned. Further reply is that this O.P. Bank has got alliance with the Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd. and it was intimated to the complainant, thereafter, vehicle in question was insured with the concerned insurance co. Further case is that complainant is regularly paying his installments to the Bank and on the day of filing of W.S. (i.e. 22.09.2018) outstanding dues amount is Rs. 1,77,367/-. Further reply is that as per cover note of the insurance the validity period of the vehicle was 3 months without registration but unfortunately during this period vehicle has been stolen away.
5.   On the basis of pleadings of the parties following questions are to be decided by this Commission which are as follow:-

1. Whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the basis of the provision of section 39 Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is lawful ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get any relief ?

6. In support of the case complainant has produced following papers:-

1. Photo copy of the Sales Certificate dt. 25.11.2015  Annexure-1
2. Photo copy of the Insurance policy dt. 25.11.2015  Annexure-2

3.Photo copy of the paper of registration dt.26.11.2015 Annexure 3

4. Photo copy of the application for registration of the vehicle     

•  

         5. Photo copy of the Letter  dt. 13.01.2016 written by D.T.O. Bokaro   

                                                                                              Annexure-5   

6. Photo copy of the Letter  dt. 14.01.2016 written by Seller of the   

    vehicle to the D.T.O. Bokaro                                       Annexure-6

        7. Photo copy of the F.I.R. of Petarwar P.S.Case No. 09/2016  dt.  

   16.01.2016   Annexure-7

      8. Photo copy of the letter written  on 21.01.2016 by the complainant    

          to the DTO.   Annexure-8

9 Photo copy of the charge sheet of Petarwar P.S.Case No. 09/2016       

                                                                                      Annexure-9.

10 Photo copy of the Passbook of the Savings Account of the complainant

                                                                                     Annexure-10.

11. Photo copy of the Accounts statement  of the complainant

                                                                                    Annexure-11.

12 Photo copy of the letter dt. 07.03.2016 & 15.03.2016 written by the   Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd. addressed to the complainant regarding repudiation of claim.                                                                         Annexure-12.

14. Photo copy of the legal Notice given to the O.Ps. Annexure-13.

14 Photo copy of the Postal receipt through which legal Notice was given to the O.Ps.                                                              Annexure-14.

7. On behalf of O.P. No. 1,2&3 no any evidence has been produced.

8    On behalf of O.P. No.4 copy of the statement of the loan account of  the complainant has been filed.

9. On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that following facts are admitted facts by them:-

A. That complainant has purchased Bolero Maxy Truck from Model fuel Pvt. Ltd. Dhanbad on 25.11.2015 (Annexure-1).

B. That on 25.11.2015 said truck was insured with O.P. No.1 &2 vide policy valid from 16.10.2015 to 15.02.2016 (Annexure-2).

C. That complainant paid Rs. 25,856/- as premium of the insurance policy (Annexure-2).

D. That sum insured was Rs. 4,71,638/- (Annexure-2).

E. That complainant has intimated to the O.Ps. for payment of claim.

F. That for purchase of said vehicle complainant has obtained loan Rs. 3,00,000/- from O.P. No.4 Bank and till filing of the W.S. by O.P. No.4 he was regularly paying the installments of the loan.

10     From W.S. of the parties it appears that there is no specific denial of the facts related to theft of said vehicle from the front of the house of the complainant in between the night on 15/16.01.2016 and about it Petarwar P.S. Case No. 09/2016 (Annexure-7) was registered and case was investigated in which final form/report (Annexure-9) was submitted mentioning therein the occurrence true but clueless.

11     On perusal of claim repudiation letter it appears that mere on the ground that on the relevant date of theft vehicle was not registered with the D.T.O. Bokaro hence there is violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 which is prohibiting the driving of motor vehicle at any public place or any other place without its registration and permit.

12     Now we have to see whether such ground for repudiation of claim is lawful and justified or not ?

13     In light of admitted facts of the parties it is very much clear that on the day of occurrence of the theft the vehicle was not being driven rather it was parked in front of the house of complainant as it is apparent from the copy of the F.I.R. as well as charge sheet (Annexure-7&9). In this way it is not a case in which vehicle was being driven and during it alleged occurrence was occurred. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case repudiation of the claim by O.P. No.1 &2 on the ground that on relevant date vehicle concerned was not registered is arbitrary and illegal, rather the decision taken by O.P. No.1, 2&3 appears to be arbitrary and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence in our opinion claim of the complainant is liable to be accepted.

14. Accordingly, the prayer made by the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

O.P. No.1,2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs. 4,71,638/-/-(Rs. four lac seventy one thousand six hundred and thirty eight only) to the complainant as insured claim amount within 60 days from today, failing which they shall pay interest thereon @ 10% per annum from 09.02.2017 (i.e. the date of filing of the complaint)  till realization of above mentioned amount. Further O.P. No.1,2&3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- within 60 days from today.