The complainant Sambhu Kumar Yadav has filed this complaint petition against Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and three other for realization of Rs. 5,83,379/- as sum assured with 12 % p.a. interest, Rs. 1 lacs for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
The brief, facts of the case is that the complainant is educated unemployed person. The further case is that he purchased a BOLERO Jeep chasis No.- MAIXA2GHKD2F62598 Engine No.-GHD4E61645, Registration No.-BB06PB-8187 from o.p no.-3 Shashank Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kalambagh , Road Muzaffarpur who is authorize dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. on 28-06-2013 for Rs. 6,14,645/-. The further case is that o.p no.-4 Mahindra & Mahindra vehicle services Ltd. is Financer on aforesaid Bolera Jeep. Finance company assured the complainant that he will provide all the papers relating to aforesaid vehicle to the customer. The further case is that the complainant also paid additional amount for preparation of required papers but no receipt was provided to him. The further case is that the delivery of the vehicle was made with registration paper, registered as commercial vehicle and insurance paper. O.p asked to furnish the other papers later on. The further case is that the o.p provided the insurance paper of the vehicle later on. The further case is that on 22-07-2013, when the complainant was outside of his house, information was received for illness of his family member, so ill member was to be carried out from Sonki to Dharbhanga for treatment. The aforesaid vehicle was driven out by driver Vinod Kumar to attend ill family member, in the mean time, during the course of journey at about 8 :30 P.M. in the route of Dhoighat to Sonki, one truck bearing No. BR1G-7223 collided with the Bolero from front side, so Bolero Jeep became damaged. The further case is that on information from driver, about the accident, the complainant informed o.p no.-1 insurance company in written on 24-07-2013 and requested him for necessary action. The further case is that he also lodged a Sanha is Sonki O.P., P.S-Dharghanga vide Sanha no.-STDE No.- -465/13 dated 27-07-2013. The further case is that aforesaid Bolero Jeep was insured by o.p no.-1 & 2 vide Policy No.- 170600/31/13/6300001174 for Rs. 5,83,379/-; the insurance was valid since 28-06-2013 to midnight on 27-06-2014. The further case is that complainant filed a claim petition before insurance company and insurance company appointed a surveyor Sri S. Mishra to assess the loss. After investigation, the surveyor submitted his report with estimated, damage but o.p no.-1 repudiated the claim of the claimant vide letter no.- 11-03-2014. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice on dated 07-04-2014 to o.p no. 1 & 2.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of retail invoice annexure-1, photocopy of delivery note annexure-2, photocopy of insurance certificate -annexure-3, photocopy of letter dated 24-07-2013 by Sambhu Kuamar Singh to B.M. National Insurance Company Ltd. annexure-4, photocopy of information letter to o/c of Sonki Dharghanga regarding the accident of Mahindra Bolero -annexure-5, photocopy of surveyor report -annexure-6, photocopy of repudiation letter annexure-7, photocopy of legal notice annexure-8,
On issuance of notices, o.p no.- 1 & 2 appeared and filed their w.s. on 05-08-2015 with prayer to dismiss the complaint case. It has been further mentioned in w.s. that the complaint case is false, fabricated, unwarranted, vexatious and not maintainable as the same is not based on merit. It has been further mentioned that the claim has been filed without any true cause of action so, the same should be dismissed with cost. It has been further mentioned in the w.s. that there is no deficiency in service on part of o.ps. It has been further mentioned that the vehicle was registered as taxi (commercial vehicle) so as per MV Act Road permit is required but at the time of accident the vehicle was being plied without permit. So, the case of the complainant is hit by section-66 (3) of MV Act 1988.
O.P. No.- 3 & 4 didn’t appear before the forum after issuance of notices, so forum proceeded Ex. Party against them vide order dated 23-01-2016.
On behalf of complainant, the document annexed has been marked as exhibit 1 to 8.
The complainant has produced the repudiation letter dated 11-03-2014 as exhibit-7. The o.ps have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle was being plied on the road without road permit. The complainant has himself stated in para-3 of the complaint petition that the vehicle was registered as commercial vehicle. The o.ps have stated in para-9 of their w.s. that the permit of the vehicle was valid from 26-07-2013 to 25-07-2018. The vehicle was met with an accident on 22-07-2013 at 8:30 P.M. It means at the time of accident vehicle was playing on the road without road permit. The o.ps have further stated in para 10 of the w.s. that it is clearly mentioned in insurance policy page-1 para-3 ( limitation as to used) and the same is mentioned below-
“ The Policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the MV Act- 1988 or such a carries falling under sub section 3 of section 66 of the M.V. Act 1988.” They have further stated in para-12 of the w.s. that the permit issued for the above vehicle is not valid at the time of accident as per terms and condition of the insurance policy, so the claim is not tenable .
Learned Lawyer of o.ps raised this question in his written argument. insurance policy cover’s limitation to use in which it has been further mentioned that the policy cover’s to use only under permit within the meaning of M.V. Act-1988 or such a carries falling under sub section-3 of section 66 of the MV Act-1988. The complainant has not adduced any evidence on the point that at the time of accident vehicle had valid permit. On behalf of o.ps annexure-B has been filed to show that the permit of the vehicle was only valid since 26-07-2013 to 25-07-2018 whereas an accident took place on 22-07-2013. So, it clearly shows that the vehicle in question was being plied on the road without permit on the date of occurrence and as such there is a clear violation of section – 66 of the MV Act-1988. Learned Lawyer for the o.ps have relied on finding of the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. New Delhi in the case of Punit Kumar V/s National Insurance Company Ltd and others, revision petition No.-308/2016 decided on 11-02-2016, in which Hon’ble Commission has observed that using of a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable u/s-192 of the MV Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract.
On the basis of above discussion and observance of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the considered opinion that the o.ps company have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency on the part of the o.ps.
In the circumstances the claim petition is dismissed.
