F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant with the prayer for an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.5,43,500/- with interest as cost of the damage vehicle, to pay of Rs.45,000/- for unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant has filed this case on the strength of power of attorney issued by one MukterAlam who was/ is the owner of vehicle No. WB-59/A/2510. The said vehicle was insured with the O.Ps. vide policy No.3379/00817/77/000/00 valid from 28.12.2012 to 27.12.2013 and the vehicle in question met an accident on 09.12.2013 at about 01:00, under Chakuliya PS, within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Due to the said accident the vehicle No. WB-59A/2510 was badly damaged and loss assessed to the tune of Rs.5,43,500/- by a motor garage repairing center namely “Jayma Manasha Body Repairing Workshop” at Karandighi, Uttar Dinajpur. The owner of the vehicle intimated the incident to the O.Ps. and O.Ps. also send a letter dated 16.12.13 to the owner for submitting required documents and the owner of the vehicle also complied with the requirements but the O.Ps. did not pay heed to the claim. Finding no way the complainant, i.e. allegedly power of attorney holder appeared before this Forum for getting relief.

O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing W.V., denying the allegations of the complainant, stating inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant has no locus-standi to file this case, the complaint is false, fabricated, misleading and self contradictory and the owner of the vehicle in question had given a false declaration regarding no claim bonus about the expiry policy. This O.P. prays to reject the complaint with high cost.

O.P. No.1 &n 3 are not contested this case, neither by appearing on the date of hearing nor by filing W.V. or any documents. So, this case is heard ex-parte against O.P. No. 1 & 3.

To establish his case the complainant has adduced oral evidence and filed photocopies of insurance policy, letter of correspondences by the O.P., order sheet of GR Case, Zimmanama, vehicle repairing estimate etc.

O.P. No.2 did not adduce any evidence except in filing W.V. and some photocopies of letter correspondences and previous policy of the vehicle in question etc.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

We carefully peruse the complaint petition, oral evidence, W.V., photocopies of documents and considered the argument advanced by the contesting parties.

On perusal of complaint petition, copy of seizure list in G.R. Case and letter of correspondences, it is admitted that the vehicle bearing No. WB-59A/2510 owned by Mukter Alam, met an accident and PS Case was registered at Chakuliya PS, vide case No.386/13, dated 09.12.2013 and the said vehicle was validly insured with the O.Ps. and the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident. Owner of the vehicle in question intimated the incident to the O.Ps. and the required documents were also submitted to the O.Ps. but the O.Ps.  had repudiated the claim of the complainant.

The complainant has stated in his complaint petition that he is representing on behalf of Sattar Ahamed on the strength of power of attorney but no such power of attorney has produced in this case and in absence of power of attorney the complainant has no locus-standi to file this case as he is not a consumer under the O.Ps. From the copy of order sheet in C/W GR Case being No. 4924/13 vide order dated 18.12.2013 passed by Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur it is evident that one Sankar Pathak, son of Naren Pathak of Raniganj, PS-Karandighi, Dist.-Uttar Dinajpur was power of attorney holder of vehicle owner Sattar Ahamed, furnished bond and has filed Zimmanama of the vehicle in question before the Judicial Magistrate, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur. In the W.V., O.P. No.2 clearly stated that in the proposal form the owner of the vehicle, Sattar Ahamed had given a false declaration that no claim as arisen in the expiry policy period and he enjoyed No Claim Bonus of 35% with the O.Ps. vide policy No. 3379/00817177/000/00. Subsequently, after issuing the policy, O.Ps. came to know from the previous insurer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, that a claim was lodged under the previous policy vide No. OG122414180300000832. Then the O.Ps. requested the owner of the vehicle to pay the short fall premium amount of Rs.5,719/- within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the letter dated 08.12.13 i.e. prior to the date of accident but the insured i.e. owner of the vehicle did not deposit the short fall premium amount of Rs.5719/- to the O.Ps. As such O.Ps. according to their rules and regulations repudiated the claim on the basis of false declaration or misrepresentation of material fact.

From the copy of declaration of “No Claim Bonus” by Sattar Ahamed as a proposer addressed to the Manager of O.P. enclosing the previous policy of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company, Sattar Ahamed declared that if this declaration is found to be incorrect, all benefits under the policy in respect of Section-I of the policy will cancelled. It is fact that as per Insurance Act and Rules insurance policy issued as per contractual agreement with certain terms and conditions within the purview of Indian Contract Act, proposal declared by the proposer is also a part of contract of insurance policy. In the instant case, the proposer i.e. owner of the vehicle in question took benefit from this O.P. by payment of less premium amount by suppression of material fact as well as false declaration regarding “No Claim Bonus”, which tantamount to breach of the condition of insurance policy. However, these O.Ps. had given an opportunity to the owner of the vehicle by sending a letter dated 08.02.2013 i.e., prior to about 10 months before the accident, to pay the short fall amount of Rs.5,719/- within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter but the owner of the vehicle did not pay heed to the said letter. As such it is clear case of violation of Insurance Policy Condition.

It is fact that this O.Ps. have upon utmost good faith issued the policy bearing No.3379/00817177/000/00 valid from 28.12.2012 to 27.12.2013 in favour of the vehicle bearing No. WB-59A/2510 owned by Sattar Ahamed on the basis of received the proposal dated 28.12.2012 by the owner of the vehicle and thereafter knowingly fully well the owner enjoyed the benefits of insurance policy by paying less premium amount near about one year i.e. the whole period of the policy coverage by declaring a false, misconceived and misrepresentation of vital material fact which amounts to gross violation of insurance policy condition and the O.Ps. have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

In view of the discussion hereinbefore we are of opinion that the O.ps. had no negligence and no deficiency in service. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any award or any compensation from the O.Ps.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

Thus the complaint case fails.

That the case being No. CC-21/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P. No.2 and ex-parte against the O.P. No.1 & 3 without cost.

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