This is a case U/S 12, of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.Ps.                          to pay Rs. 46163/- plus interest, Rs 5000/- as compensation for unnecessary delay and mental harassment and Rs 10000/- as litigation cost.

The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant was/ is the owner of vehicle being No- WB- 59A/4554 and said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vide insurance policy No- OG-12/2404/1803/00002336 valid from 06/12/2011 to 05/12/2012. On 05/05/2012 the vehicle in question mentioned above met with an accident under Pothiya P.S. vide Pothiya P.S case No- 64/2012 dated 08/05/2012 within the  state of Bihar. The matter of the said accident intimated to the O.P. along with

the documents for payment of compensation but the O.P. did not pay heed to the claim of the complainant . Finding no alternative the complainant was forced to come before this Forum.

The O.P. contested this case by filing written version denying the allegations of the complainant , stating interalia that the vehicle in question mentioned above was plying on the date of accident without permit and was carrying 30/35 passengers in a goods vehicle which violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, the case is liable to be dismissed .           

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

In support of his case, the complainant has adduced his statement supported by an affidavit, questionnaires, certified copies of F.I.R. & C.S., Photocopies of R.C, tax, D.L., permit , vehicle repairing bill etc.

The O.P. also submitted W.V., duplicate policy, adduced their statement supported by an affidavit as D.W .- 1 &2  and answer of questionnaires etc.

We find from the documents submitted by the parties that the vehicle in question mentioned above of the complainant was admitted as a goods vehicle (mini truck) and also admitted that the said vehicle met with an accident which caused damaged to the vehicle and the O.P. was the insurer of the said goods vehicle .

           We carefully perused the documents, W.V. , adduced their statement supported by an affidavit and considered argument advanced by the both parties. From the Registration certificate and permit of the vehicle it revels that the said vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and the insurance policy was also issued as a goods carrying vehicle. Certified copy of  F.I.R. and complaint petition it is admitted by the complainant that the accident of the said vehicle occurred on 05/05/2012 under Pothiya P.S vide Pothiya P.S. case No- 64/2012 dated 05/05/2012 within the jurisdiction of State of BIHAR.   The complainant did not disclosed the actual happenings of the said accident of the vehicle mentioned above in the complaint petition.  The O.P. by their investigating agency , adduced evidence and statement of W.V . it has been established that the vehicle was a goods vehicle , carrying 30/35 passengers and was plying within the State of BIHAR on the date of accident with out permit as the permit of the said vehicle was issued by the RTA , Uttar Dinajpur mentioning the area for plying the said vehicle “ West Bengal “ except hilly portion of Darjeeling District . It also revels from the insurance policy in column “Limitation as to use”, it is specifically mentioned that “ the policy covers use only under a permit with in

the meaning of   Motor Vehicle Act or such a carriage falling under sub section 3 of sec. 66 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988. The O.P. has adduced by cogent evidence that the vehicle in question of the complainant was violated permit condition as per M.V. Act on plying the vehicle in the state of Bihar, outside West Bengal as well as violated the terms of insurance policy condition on the date of accident. It is fact that insurance policy was/is prepared on the basis of contractual agreement in consideration of payment of premium of each policy with certain terms and conditions. In this case from the evidences we find

that the vehicle of the complainant on the date of accident was plying without permit which contravene the provisions of M.V. Act as well as the insurance policy condition.

The complainant was submitted his claim before the O.P.  for compensation as repairing cost of the damaged vehicle but the O.P. did not settle the claim for violation of insurance policy condition as such the claim was repudiated by the O.P.

In view of the discussions herein before we are opinion that the O.P. was/is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part rather the complainant has fail to prove his case.

Accordingly the case of the complainant fails.

            Fees paid is correct.

          Hence, it is                 

                                                               Ordered

that the complaint case being No. 78/2012 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. without cost.

            Copy of this order be supplied to each parties , free of cost.