The complainant Sri Prakash Kumar has filed this complaint petition against Regional Manager,  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Mumbai (West)   and three others (o.ps) for  realization of  Rs.  5,66,832/- as  sum assured,  Rs. 1,00,000/- for economic loss and mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/-as litigation cost with other reliefs  which the forum deems fit.

 The brief, facts of the case is that on 04-04-2015 the complainant  purchased a tractor Model No.- 275 D.I from o.p No.-4  premier Engineering Trading Company Aamgola Muzaffarpur for Rs. 5,16,665/-. The further case is that the o.p No.-4 insured the above tractor from o.p no.- 1 to 3 on the same date and its policy no. was-3008/101356809/00/000 validity  dt. 04-04-2015 to midnight of 03-04-2016. The further case is that the o.p no.-4 Premier Engineering and Trading Company issued a trade certificate to ply tractor and the validity of the same was till 31-12-2015. The further case is that the complainant got registered the new Tractor from the office of D.T.O Muzaffarpur Vide Registration No. BR06-GB-5953 and its validity was from 04-04-2015 to 03-04-2030. The further case is that in the night of 06-04-2015 at about 8:30 P.M the Tractor was being driven by complainant’s  driver  and he was coming to the house of complainant from Rupan Patti Chowk and as soon as he reached ahead to the Markan Chowk of Small Bridge, the tractor was looted  away by unknown miscreants, by getting down the driver and labour from the tractor, for which Sakara P.S Case No. 100/2015 dated 07-04-2015 u/s- 392 of the IPC was registered. After investigation, I.O. submitted final form showing the case ‘true but no clue’ and the same was  accepted by A.C.J.M cum Sub Judge-4 Muzaffarpur vide order dated 04-12-2015. The further case is that the complainant informed the o.ps regarding the  looted away tractor in written and also submitted all the original papers with non judicial stamp of Rs. 210/-, bank pass book  key of the tractor, FIR, Charge sheet and acceptance  order by registered post.  The further case is that the complainant sent legal notice on 12-08-2016 thereafter, o.p no.- 1 & 2 sent papers regarding  insurance claim no.- Moto-4518782 and the complainant sent the same by filing the same registered post on 15-11-2016. The complainant further sent legal notice on 04-01-2017. The further case is that the o.ps returned the documents of the complainant and repudiated his claim vide letter dt.- 19-01-2017.

   The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of retail invoice  annexure-1, photocopy of challan annexure-1/1. Photocopy  of certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule annexure-2, photocopy of Trade Certificate -annexure-3, photocopy of  Form-23A (Registration) -annexure-4, photocopy of order- sheet dated 04-12-2015 annexure-5, photocopy of FIR of P.S Case No.-100/2016,  annexure-5/1, photocopy of final form- annexure-5/2, photocopy of legal notice dated 12-08-2016- annexure-6, photocopy of legal notice dated 04-01-2017 annexure-7, photocopy of  repudiation letter annexure-8.

On Issuance of notices o.p no.- 1 to 3 appeared before forum and filed their w.s. on 04-02-2019 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition with cost. It has been further prayed by the o.ps that the complainant be ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- u/s-26 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986  for filing false and vexatious complain. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complaint petition is barred by limitation and territorial jurisdiction. It has been further mentioned that the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. It has been further mentioned that the case of the complainants suffers with non joinder of necessary party and rejoinder of unnecessary party  as the vehicle was hypothecated  with Bank and same is necessary party to add. It has been further mentioned that the  intimation with regard to robbery of Sakara P.S. Case No. 100/2015 has been filed after delay of one day and the Insurance Company was intimated after lapse of 18 days without sufficient satisfactory explanation for delay. It has been further mentioned that the complainant’s vehicle was not registered at the time of loss i.e 06-04-2015. Which is violation of policy terms and condition  MV Act. It has been further mentioned that the MV Act states that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act 1988  (section 39.)

O.P. No. 4 didn’t appear, before the forum so forum proceeded Ex. Party against him vide order dated                   21-12-2019.

On behalf of complainant, AW-1 Prakash Kumar                (Complainant) and AW-2 Arun Kumar Bharti have been examined on affidavit.

No evidence has been adduced on behalf of o.ps.

The complainant has filed annexure-8, repudiation letter to show that the claim is in violation of policy terms and condition of MV Act. Which states that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act 1988, section 39. O.ps nos-1, 2, 3 has also mentioned the above facts in w.s. In their w.s. in para-12 the occurrence of loot is said to have been committed on 06-04-2015. The complainant has annexed photocopy of registration form no.- 23 A annexure-4. On perusal of annexure-4, It transpires that registration date is 11-04-2015   but the occurrence is prior to the registration i.e.06-04-2015. The complainant has permitted his driver   to drive the vehicle  without registration which is in violation of section 39 of the MV Act-1988 of Section-39 of the MV Act-1988 is as follows.

39 Necessity for registration-  No person shall drive any motor vehicle and  no owner of a  motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration  mark displayed in the prescribed manner”.

Complainant has permitted the vehicle  in question to play on the public road without registration which is in violation of section-39 of MV Act, so the o.p no. 1 to 3 has rightly repudiated  the claim  of the complainant  and as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, complaint petition is dismissed.