Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/75

Ratilal Modi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baranch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Sanjay Kapoor

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to pay the insured amount (amount not mentioned) with 12% interest and for payment of Rs.20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation and litigation cost respectively to the complainant.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased Maruti Alto 800 LXI Car financed by HDFC Bank on 15.02.2014 for Rs. 3,31,438/- and loan installments were to be paid till five years @ Rs. 7415/- per month. Further case is that said car was insured with O.P. No.1 &2 which was valid from 15.02.2014 to 14.02.2015 and other papers of the vehicle were deposited in the D.T.O. office Bokaro for registration of the vehicle. Further case is that on 11.06.2014 said vehicle met with an accident during rescue of a cow for which information to Petarwar Police was given then vehicle was removed from the accident spot and kept in the Petarwar P.S. Further case is that on telephonic information to O.P. No.1 Sri Rakesh Kumar was deputed as surveyor and complainant was directed to take further steps. Said surveyor directed the complainant to receive the vehicle from P.S. concerned and shift it to the Garage where all paper formalities will be competed. Accordingly on 12.06.2014 said vehicle was taken to the garage from the P.S. concerned and information to surveyor was given, thereafter, surveyor took photographs of damaged car and obtained signature of the complainant on some papers. Further case is that surveyor convinced the complainant that he will submit claim in the office along with report and claim will be settled but he has not given claim number and receipt etc. but no claim was given. Further case is that meanwhile complainant obtained registration number of the vehicle which is JH-09X-6115 and when complainant tried to contact the surveyor then his cell phone was found switched off and when he approached the office of O.P. No.1 then no satisfactory reply was given rather it was informed that it will take some time to complete the procedure of the claim, however the details of surveyor was not given, meanwhile a legal notice of the HDFC Bank was received regarding nonpayment of the installments which was replied, later on legal notice dt. 15.04.2016 was given to O.P. No.1 and 2 having no impact, then case has been filed before this Commission.
3.   O.P. No.1 & 2 have filed joint W.S. mentioning therein that there is no cause of action of the case which is not maintainable and alleged occurrence took place on 11.06.2014 but case has been filed after laps of two years, hence it is time barred. Further reply is that the alleged vehicle was insured with these O.Ps. for the alleged period but it was under hypothecation agreement with the HDFC Bank and policy was issue through said Bank hence real owner of the vehicle is bank concerned and complainant is having authority of trusty only. Further case is that there is no paper regarding registration of FIR in the P.S. concerned and no notice or information was given to the O.P. rather alleged occurrence took place on 11.06.2014 and intimation to the insurance company was given on 04.08.2014 with 54 days delay which is against the terms and conditions of the policy and further on the alleged date vehicle concerned was not registered with the transport Authority, hence playing of the vehicle without registration was also against the terms and conditions of the policy and against the provisions of MV Act. Further case is that complainant had removed the vehicle concerned from spot of accident without intimation to the O.P. hence O.P. was deprived from ascertainment of correct facts related to the accident, cause of loss, quantum of loss etc. Further case is that the statement made in para 9,11,12,14,15,16 & 18 are being denied because complainant has made no any claim before the O.P. nor O.P. have appointed any surveyor. O.P. never received any legal notice. HDFC bank has not made party in this case. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
4.    After filing of W.S. by O.P. No.1&2 complainant has added HDFC Bank as O.P. No.3 and thereafter, notice to O.P. No.3 was issued but bank concerned never appeared hence vide order dt. 18.09.2018 case is proceeding Ex-parte against the Bank O.P. No.3.
5.    To prove its case complainant has filed photo copy of following documents :-

1. Photo copy of the policy paper     (Annexure-1)
2. Photo copy of Zimmanama             (Annexure-2)
3. Photo copy of R.C. Book                 (Annexure-3)
4. Copy of  Legal Notice dt. 03.09.2015, 25.09.2015 &15.04.2016  

(Annexure-4,5 &6)

6. Except above noted papers no other evidence has been

produced by the complainant.

7. No any evidence either oral or documentary has been produced    

by theO.Ps.

8. On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that purchase of the vehicle by the complainant, hypothecation of the vehicle with HDFC Bank on grant of loan and insurance of the vehicle with O.P. No.1 &2 are admitted facts.
9.   Hence only point in controversy is whether complainant is entitled to get the claim as alleged in the complaint petition ? And whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed in the case.
10.   As it has been mentioned above that except above mentioned copy of the papers from Sl. No. 1 to 4 of para 5 of this order no any other evidence either oral or documentary has been produced by the complainant hence mere on the basis of those papers it has to be decided by this Commission that whether complainant is able to prove its case or not.  No paper or photograph to show that vehicle met with an accident on alleged date and got damaged due to that very accident has been brought on record. No any evidence to prove the fact that the vehicle was shifted to the garage has been brought on the record. No any evidence to show that in which garage vehicle was brought for its repair has been produced in the case. No any paper/evidence regarding prompt intimation to the O.Ps. related to  the accident and damage of the vehicle has been produced by the complainant. No any paper regarding estimate related to the cost was to be incurred in repair of the vehicle by any workshop has been produced to show the genuineness of the claim has been brought on the record by the complainant.
11.    Complaint petition is disclosing the fact that vehicle was being played without registration certificate and this fact is being corroborated from Annexure-2 (Zimmanama) in which it has been specifically mentioned that the number of the vehicle has not been received. Therefore, playing of the vehicle for long period (from 15.02.2014 till 11.06.2014) without registration number itself an illegal act. Alleged occurrence of the case was occurred on 11.06.2014 and there is no paper to show that there was intimation to the O.Ps. rather case has been filed on 09.07.2016 after expiry of two years period, hence it is time barred.
12.   In light of above discussions we are of the view that the complainant has not proved the facts mentioned in the complaint petition for grant of any relief as prayed for rather his prayer is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly case is dismissed with cost.