The instant case was instituted on the basis of an application filed under Section 12 of the Consumer protection act, 1986 filed by the complainant which was registered as Consumer Case No. 84/16 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition as well as the evidence is that the complainant/petitioner Azahar Hossain is the actual owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.WB-59B/3137 Maruti L/Taxi Motor Cab. From the petition it is also revealed that the complainant/petitioner purchased an Insurance policy in respect of his vehicle vide Insurance Policy No.3001/MI-03083921/00/000 and the said policy was valid from 28.09.2015 to 27.09.2016 (Midnight). From the petition of complaint as well as the evidence it is revealed that the said vehicle of the complainant suddenly met with an accident. As a result of which said vehicle was badly damaged. After the accident the complainant intimated the fact to the Insurance Co. within time and thereafter O.P./Insurance Co. engaged an investigator to assess the actual damage cost of the vehicle. The complainant repair the damage vehicle and paid Rs.1,29,782/- for repairing of the damaged vehicle with a proper estimate. But after investigation by the surveyor of the O.P, the office of the O.P did not pay any amount in respect of the damaged vehicle. Finding no other alternative the petitioner examined and assessed the actual damaged cost of his vehicle from the authorized agent and submitted the claim with proper estimate and documents to the office of the Insurance Company. But the office of the O.P did not pay any heed or did not pay any amount. On 24.08.2016 the O.P sent a letter stating the Insurance policy is under private car package policy and the vehicle registered under passenger carrying vehicle, so your claim cannot be settled.

The complainant further submitted that all the documents was submitted before the office of the O.P but the O.P did not allow his legitimate claim, as such the complainant has been filed this case before this Forum claiming Rs.1,29,782/- for damaged cost of the vehicle , Rs.1,50,000/- for unnecessary harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by the OP/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. by filling the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the OP contending inter alia that the instant petition is not maintainable in law and present form. There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.P. and the claim is barred by waiver, estopples, acquiescence without jurisdiction and also by law of limitation and he has got no locus standi to file this complain against this O.P.

The definite defence case is that the petitioner actually purchased private car package policy but the damage vehicle was being used as commercial purpose at the time of alleged accident and by that process he completely violated the term and conditions of the insurance policy, so the O.P/Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any such compensation as claimed by the petitioner.

The further defence case is that the Govt. authorized surveyor Loss Assessor & valuer Kaushik Modi submitted final assessed amount of the alleged damaged vehicle is Rs.31,649/- but due to private package policy and violation of Insurance policy it is not possible to settle the claim. Moreover, the complainant did not inform the police station after accident. Even, the date of accident has not been mentioned in the complaint petition.

As such the owner has grossly violated the terms and conditions of the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy. As such the Insurance Company has no liability to make any payment towards the repair of the damage vehicle.

During trial the complainant Mr. Azahar Hossain was examined as P.W.1 and he was cross examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. No witness was examined on behalf of the O.P. During trial both the parties filed the documents to prove their respective case.

Now the point for determination whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get any compensation or not.

D E C I S I O N  W I T H  R E A S O N S

At the time of argument the learned lawyer of the O.P. draws the attention as to the Para- 4 of the petition of complaint. According to the argument, the date of accident is lying blank. So, there is confusion whether there was an accident or not. According to his submissions it is found that after the accident the driver/owner of the vehicle should lodge a complaint about the incident to the nearest Police Station. But no document is forth coming before this forum that any information was given to any Police Station. Moreover, there is no document to show that matter was informed to the Insurance Company.

On the other hand the Learned Lawyer of the complainant submitted that unless and until the Insurance Company was informed after the accident; how the Insurance Company deputed a surveyor for assessing the damage of the vehicle. So, the argument raised by the Learned Lawyer for the O.P. is not tenable. It is a fact that the date of accident has not been mentioned either in the petition of complaint or examination-in-chief. No document has been produced to the fact that the matter was informed to the Insurance Company or to the Police Station. But such argument as raised by the Learned Lawyer for the O.P. that the Insurance Company had no knowledge about the incident is not at all believable as because unless and until the Insurance Company was informed, why the Insurance Company deputed a surveyor for investigation as regard to assess of the damage. So, considering such facts the Insurance Company had the knowledge about the incident.

Next point is argued by the Learned Lawyer for the O.P. is that the vehicle was insured for the private purpose not for commercial purpose. So, this is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as such the Insurance Company has no liability to make any payment. On the other hand the Learned Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the policy is being done by the Computer system, so there is no provision for change of manner of policy whether it is used as a private or commercial purpose. But such argument of the Learned Lawyer for the complainant is not tenable as because the Computer will be operated by the operator that means by human, what will be put in the computer that will be reflected in the computer. So, such argument as advanced by the Learned Lawyer of the complainant that there is no provisions for change the manner of policy is not at all believable and admirable. Moreover, no document has come before this Forum that the complainant has prayed for change of policy from private to commercial purpose. The Learned Lawyer for the O.P. argued that the complainant had the knowledge that the vehicle is being used for the commercial purpose. So, the complainant should have changed the policy of Insurance from Private Car Package to Commercial purpose. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P has filed the copy of the order issued by Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal showing that permission was issued for using the vehicle for commercial purpose. So definitely the complainant had the knowledge that the vehicle is being used for the commercial purpose. So, considering such facts and circumstances as there is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and no valid driving license has been produced. So, considering such facts and circumstances before the, the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

C.F. paid is correct,

Hence, it is                                            

O R D E R E D:

That the instant case being No. CC- 84/16 is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.