S.S. Ali, Member
In short the complainant’s case is that he had an Insurance Package policy, issued on 08.07.2011 being no. 121436137 dtd. 08.07.2011 having coverage period from 08.07.2011 to 07.07.2012 by the OP no.2 through OP no.1 in respect of vehicle no. WB32B874P (L.M.V. Omnibus). The said vehicle was purchased from the OP no.1 with agreed rate alongwith the charges for Insurance, Road Tax etc.
On 20.06.2012 at 10 P.M. the said vehicle met an accident with a bus causing injury to the petitioner and damage to the vehicle. The incident of accident was intimated to the OP no.1. After release of the said vehicle from Police Station as per order of ACJM, Contai, it was kept with OP no.1 for repairing of the damaged vehicle with request for giving information to the OP no.2 for claim of repairing charges.
The OP no.1 forwarded the copy of Job Order Card with intimation about full body damaged including date of delivery of the vehicle on 10.12.2012 but inspite of several request the OP no.1 did not hand over the vehicle on 10.12.2012 or any other date, hence the case.
The OP no.1 did not appear to contest the case inspite of service of notice upon them.
The OP no.2 contested the case by filing W/V wherein all the material allegations made against it have been denied. That apart it is stated that the complainant cannot get any benefit for breach of any specific terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, issued by OP no.2, hence their prayer is for dismissal of the case.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for?
Decision with reason
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion.
We have carefully gone through the photocopies of the document filed by the parties on record as also the W/N/A filed by the OP no.2. Considered the submissions made by the Ld Advocates of both the parties.
The para 12 of the complaint discloses that the father of the petitioner was aware (as he came to know from OP no.1) that the OP no.2 would not pay any claim of loss/damages towards the vehicle in question since the said vehicle was running with LPG fuel beyond the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
The above portion of the fact has not been brought to the notice of the Forum in course of argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner.
The grievance on the part of the OP no.2 (Insurance Co.) is that due to breach of specific terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as issued by the OP no.2 the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the OP no.2 and that no claim is placed before it either by the OP no.1 or by the petitioner himself. Moreover, the petitioner has not prayed for relief as against the OP no.1
The photocopy of the letter dtd. 24.09.2012 (downloaded from Gmail) addressed to the petitioner by the OP no.2 (filed on record by the petitioner) goes to show that the vehicle in question was run by him by using fuel LPG at the time of accident which had been endorsed by the registering authority, Paschim Medinipur in Certificate of Registration. It is further stated in the said letter dtd. 24.09.2012 that neither the same endorsement had been done in the schedule of the Insurance Policy in question nor balance premium of LPG endorsement had been deposited by the petitioner to the Co. for which 64 V.B. compliance has not been complied within the policy and so this Co. is not liable for the said accident and for such reason the claim of the petitioner’s file has been closed as “no claim” and for the above reason, to our mind, the OP no.1 is not in a position to repair the damaged vehicle.
In our considered view, therefore, this document (this letter dtd. 24.09.2012) clearly indicates that there is breach of specific terms and conditions of the said policy on the part of the petitioner. That being so, the petitioner/complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for and as such, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed exparte against the OP no.1 and on contest against the OP no.2 without any order as to cost.
S.S. Ali A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
