This is a case Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant with the prayer directing the O.P. No.1 & 2 to pay cost of Rs.1,49,886/- with interest 9% and to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/- for harassment and deficiency service with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner of a vehicle being No.BR-11F/3769 of Mahindra & Mahindra Company. The vehicle-in-question is under an insurance policy of the O.P./ Insurance Company bearing policy No. 332600/31/2012/2320, valid from 20.11.2011 to 19.11.2012 and total sum assured Rs.2,50,000/-. That on 11.10.2012 at 10:05 AM the vehicle met with an accident at Hatoa village near Kanki outpost. A police case was started at Kanki outpost bearing No. GDEN404/12 dated 16.10.2012. Within the insurance period the accident occurred. The vehicle was badly damaged and examined through Tirupati Motors at Sevok Road, Siliguri and the assessed damaged was to the tune of Rs.1,49,886/- for repairing cost., Complainant submitted a claim with proper estimate and documents. on 22.10.2012 he sent a letter to the O.P. No.1 for getting damaged cost amount, but with no result. He knocked at the door of O.P. No.1 on several occasions, but O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed. Then on 31.03.2013 O.P. No.1 Insurance Company send a letter to the complainant informing that his claim has been repudiated. Complainant claims that as the accident occurs within the insured period O.P. is bound to pay damaged amount as assessed. As O.P. neglected and fails to pay the claim then he filed this complaint petition with the above mentioned prayer before this Forum.

The O.P. No.1 and 2 contested the case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, that the allegations made in the complaint, all frivolous & fictitious. O.P. denied that the vehicle met with an accident on 11.10.2012 or that the vehicle was badly damaged or that the damaged was assessed after examination to the tune up Rs.1,49,886/- as repairing cost. O.P. stated that the vehicle was having valid permit within the state of Bihar at the material time of the accident. But the motor accident took place at Hatoa village near Kanki outpost under jurisdiction of Uttar Dinajpur. O.P. further admits that the information from complainant regarding loss intimation letter dated 13.08.2012 & O.P. replied the same on 24.01.2013. That after receiving the information of damaged vehicle the matter was investigated. From the spot enquiry it was found that the accident occurred at Kani outpost within PS Chakulia, West Bengal. O.P. alleges the permit issued by the RTA, Purnea as per particular date of validity covered date of loss and the area of permit was covered under the district Purnia within the state of Bihar. In the letter dated 24.01.2013, O.P./ Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that at the material time of the accident the permit of the vehicle was not valid for the route in which the vehicle was plying. O.P. furnished the copy of FIR lodged by the complainant on 16.10.2012 and received by the Kanki Outpost on that day at 13:25 hrs. clearly shows that the place of accident at Hatoya village on NH - 31 under the Kanki Outpost area. The photocopy of the permit No. 301/10, dated 29.05.2010 valid from 29.05.2010 to 28.05.2015 goes to show "Sampurna Purniya Promandal" relates to the said vehicle No. BR-11F/3769. The photocopy of registration certificate from the authority of Purniya is also filed.

To establish his case the complainant filed memo of evidence, answer of questionnaires, oral evidence, some photocopies of documents etc.

O.P. No. 1 and 2 to prove the defence case has submitted W.V., questionnaires and also some documents as discussed above.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

We carefully perused the complaint, W.V., photocopies of documents and considered the argument advanced by the contesting parties.

On perusal of complaint it appears that admittedly the accident occurred on 11.10.2012 at 10:05 AM at Hatoa village under Kanki PS, district Uttar Dinajpur, state of West Bengal. At that time, the permit of the vehicle was not valid to run the vehicle on that route. Therefore, it is clear from the Insurance policy of the vehicle in question, submitted by the complainant, and from the face of the policy, in column "Limitation As to Use" clearly mentioned that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of Sec.66(3) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In the instant case it appears from the policy documents the vehicle inquestion was plying on the date of accident beyond the route permit.

Therefore, we find that it is a clear case of violation of terms and conditions of policy. The O.P. Insurance Company is not at all liable for any compensation to the complainant for such motor accident.

Thus the case of the complainant fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the complaint case being No. CC - 23/2014 is dismissed on contest against O.P. No.1 & 2 without cost.

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