Case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Sumo Gold Ex colour from Lexus Motors on 28.7.2012 at price Rs.6,84,720/- . The said vehicle was regiwstered bearing no. WB 15B/8131. Petitioner insured the vehicle from National Insurance Co. On 5.11.2012 valid upto 4.11.2013. On 18.6.2013 the said vehicle was under an accident on 18.6.2013 at New town and vehicle was damaged.
After the above accident the complainant filed claim. The same was rejected on the ground the vehicle had no route permit as required by law. The expenses for repairing the vehicle was Rs.85000/-. As the Op Insurance company refused claim, so this case has been conceived and has seen the light of day. Complainant prays relief as per prayer.
In the meantime, the complainant died on 8.12.2015. The cause title has been amended by substituting Legal heirs namely wife Ranu Datta, Somnath Datta and Momita Bhattacharjee by order dated 8.12.2015.
Op Insurance company has conteste4d the case by filing written version denying inter alia all the material allegation and raised the positive case that the complainant had no permit at the time of accident on date stated by complainant.
This is required under M.V.Act so there was no permit on the date of accident, the claim has been rejected on the ground of possessing no permit as required by law.
The complainant has filed the following documents.
a)Mainly registration certificate (b) Policy certificate (c) application for
route permit (d) G.D. (e) refusal of claim etc. Complainant and Op have filed evidence in chief and Op also have along with other documents filed Evidence n chief . Complainant and Op filed Written Notes of Argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
- If the complainant is a consumer ?
- If the complainant had permit of the ill fated vehicle on the date of accident?
- If the complainant is entitled to get relief ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the issues are taken together for easiness for easiness of discussion.
Complainant discloses the factum that on date of accident which occurred in the other district area i.e. within the district of North 24 Parganas. The complainant since as per his case was driving the vehicle which collided with another vehicle within New Town area wherein G.D. entry no.1152 dated 18.6.2013 was made. Complainant adduced no document to substantiate that on the date of accident the complainant had permit . It is argued strongly by Ld. Advocate of Op that the driving of the vehicle without permit is not permissible in law.
It is also admitted position that on that day of accident the complainant had no permit . The whole crux of the case stands only one paper and that permit of ill fated vehicle. The repudiation of claim of complainant by the oP Insurance company is right as per express law laid down in S66 of M.V.Act.
So material on records convince us to hold that the complainant ‘s case fails and devoid of merit , hence same is liable to be dismissed.
Ordered
That the Complaint case no. 79 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
