JUDGMENT  AND  ORDER

                                                   The  case of  complainant Misira  Begum  Barbhuiya, in brief, is that  the complainant is the registered owner of  vehicle  No.AS-11-AC/7168. The vehicle was insured with the  O.P.  No.-1  Shriram General Insurance  Co.  Ltd.  vide policy no.- 10003/31/17/510232 and insurance was valid from 02/01/2017  to  01/01/2018.  In the intervening night of  19/20 th June ‘ 2017  the driver of vehicle no. AS-11-AC/7168  namely Sahajul  Islam Barbhuiya  was returning home  from  Alvin Bagan  and on the way at  Chengkuri  the vehicle stopped due to mechanical defect.  The driver kept the vehicle on the side of the road and informed the complainant.  On the next morning the vehicle was found  in  gutted condition   completely damaged.   Regarding the incident the complainant  lodged an  FIR with the police and accordingly a case was registered vide  Silchar P.S.  Case No.-1457/2017  U/S  435/34  IPC.  During  the course of investigation  police  seized the vehicle and also got the vehicle examined by the  MVI.  After the  alleged incident  intimation was given to the  O.P.  and also claim for damages  was  lodged to them.  On receipt of the claim intimation  the O.P. deputed a surveyor who collected all  relevant papers from the complainant.  But subsequently  vide letter dated  03/08/2017  the O.P.  No.-1  repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of  the Opposite Party  Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.  the complainant  has  filed this case  praying for a decree  of Rs.1,92,172/- as  insured  amount,  for further decree of Rs. 1,55,500/- regarding  loss of daily earning  and compensation of Rs.70,000/-  for  disservice. 

                                      On receipt of the complaint petition notice was issued to the O.Ps.  and  they   contested the case  and filed written statement  stating , interalia, that there is no cause of action for filing this case,  that the case is bad for defect of parties, that the case is barred by the law of limitation  etc.  etc.  The version of the  O.Ps. is that  on receipt of the intimation of the alleged accident  Surveyor  Shri  Chandan  Dutta  was deputed  and  he  assessed the vehicle and  submitted his report .  However,  according to the O.P.,  the  insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated  because though the  alleged accident took place on  the  night of  19/20  June’ 2017   but the validity  of  fitness certificate of the  vehicle  in  question expired on  17/04/2017 .   It has been alleged  that the owner of the vehicle has violated  the terms and conditions of the Insurancy policy and  has  also  violated the  provisions  of the  Motor Vehicles Act.  The O.Ps.  have denied that there has been any deficiency of service towards the complainant.  Under the circumstances, it is stated that,  the complainant is not entitled to get any  relief in the case  and accordingly, the case  is liable to be dismissed.

                                              In support of the case the complainant has submitted her evidence on affidavit  as  PW-1  and  the evidence  of  one  Sahajul  Islam Barbhuiya  as  PW-2.  Some  documents also have been exhibited in the case.  On the other hand,  from the side of  O.P.  evidence on affidavit  of   two  witnesses namely  Shri  Pijush  jain  and  Shri   Santosh Garain  have been  submitted.   Some  documents also have been exhibited in the case.  Both the parties have  submitted written argument.   We have also heard the oral argument  put forward by the learned counsel for the respective parties.  Perused the entire evidence on record.

                                               The  complainant in her evidence as PW-1  has stated that she is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing  No.-AS 11-C/ 7168  and also the vehicle was insured with the  O.P.  No.-1  Shriram General Insurance  Company  Ltd. vide policy  No.-10003/31/17/510232 having validity  from  02/01/2017  to  01/01/2018.  Further version of PW-1  is that  in the intervening night of  19/20^th  June’2017  while  the driver of the vehicle was returning  home from  Alvin  Bagan then on the way at  Chengkuri   the vehicle stopped due to mechanical defect and the driver kept the vehicle on the road side.  It is stated by  PW-1  that  on the following  morning  going to that spot  the vehicle was  found gutted and completely  in  damaged condition.  The evidence of  PW-1  goes to show that  regarding the incident  an FIR was lodged  with the police and a case was registered vide Silchar  P.S.  Case No.-1457/17  U/s 435/34  IPC  against the  unknown  miscreants and  Police investigated the case and  during the course of investigation  police seized the vehicle and  also got the vehicle  examined by  MVI.  A  police report  was also  issued to the complainant stating the facts and status of the said case.   PW-1  has exhibited the photocopy of FIR as Ext.-1,  the photocopy of the police report  as  Ext.-2, photocopy of Inventory  Report of motor vehicle as Ext.-3,  the photocopy of Certificate of  Fitness  as Ext.-4  and photocopy of seizurelist as  Ext.-5.  It also has been claimed by PW-1 that at the relevant time of accident the  driver of the vehicle  had valid driving licence.  Further  averment of PW-1 is that  after the  alleged incident intimation was given to the  insurer  Opposite Party and also claim was lodged to them for  damages of the vehicle.  The O.P.  No.-1 deputed  a  Surveyor  who collected  all the relevant papers and original documents from the complainant.  PW-1  has  exhibited the photocopy of  Insurance Policy as  Ext.-6    and  photocopy  of  the R.C.  book as Ext.-7.  As per statement of PW-1  the O.P.  No.-1  over telephone informed her regarding  sanction of Rs.70,000/- but  she refused to accept the same.  Later on the O.P.  No.-1  by his letter dated  03/08/2017 repudiated the claim.

                                       In his evidence adduced  on behalf of  O.P.  no.-1   DW  Shri  Pijush Jain  has, however,  has not disputed the fact that the alleged vehicle  was insured with the O.P.  Insurance Company and  after the alleged incident caused to the vehicle the insured  submitted claim for damages.  The lodging of FIR with the Police regarding the incident is also not disputed in the case.  According  to  said witness  after receiving the  intimation of the alleged  accident  O.P.  appointed  IRDA  approved  surveyor Mr. Chandan Dutta  who assessed  the vehicle and submitted his report.  DW-1 has exhibited the certified copy of  survey report  as  Ext.-A .   As  per Ext.-A  survey  report  Insurance Company’s liability is  Rs. 63,800/-.  DW-1  in his evidence has also admitted this fact.   On the other hand,  it reveals from the evidence on record that  though the Surveyor estimated the loss of the  complainant  towards insured vehicle  at Rs.63,800/-  but  the O.P.  No.-1 repudiated the claim of the complainant.  DW-1  has also exhibited the  repudiation letter as  Ext.-C.  On  perusal  of  Ext.-C  it reveals that the claim of the complainant was denied due to  violation of permit conditions by the complainant.  In this connection the  averment of  DW-1  Shri Pijush Jain  is that  the alleged accident took place on the night of 19/20^th  June’ 2017 but after verifying all the records it is found that the Fitness Certificate of the alleged vehicle expired on  17/04/2017.  As such, according to  DW-1,  the insured  has violated the terms and conditions  of the  Insurance Policy and has also violated the conditions of Motor Vehicle Act and hence the answering  O.P. Company  is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.   Ext.-D  copy of Fitness Certificate  relating to the insured vehicle has been exhibited by  DW-1.  It is  seen that  PW-1  has  also exhibited the said document as Ext.-4  and  the  same  goes to show that the  said certificate expired on  17/04/2017. 

                                          By submitting  additional evidence on affidavit  PW-1, the  complainant has  averred that  he deposited Rs.300/-  as renewal fee for  Fitness Certificate and the same was accepted by the  D.T.O.  office and Ext.4(1) is the relevant page for renewal of  fitness, where  Ext.4(2) is the relevant entry and  Ext.4(3)  is the initial of the office employee. It is also the version of PW-1 that before issuance of certificate the vehicle was completely gutted by fire by the miscreants  and subsequently  to meet the querry of  O.P.  no.-1  Ext.-7 certificate was issued by the D.T.O.  on 28/08/2017.   PW-2  Sahajul Islam Barbhuiya  has claimed that  he is the driver of the alleged vehicle No.-AS 11/AC-7168 and the  Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was valid upto 17/04/2017.  His further contention is that on 13/04/2017 he went to the D.T.O.    Office  taking the vehicle and the  MVI  inspected the vehicle and as per instruction of the MVI  he  deposited  Rs.300/- as fitness renewal fee.  According to  PW-2,   as he was busy so he could not collect the renewed  Fitness Certificate.  During the course of argument the learned counsel appearing  for the  O.P.  has submitted that the complainant  could not show any proof of renewal of Fitness Certificate of the vehicle.   From  the  cross- examination  of  PW-1  it reveals that  the O.P.   informed them in writing that  the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was  invalid.  Again  though the complainant side has claimed that they informed the O.P.  regarding  payment of renewal  fees for Fitness Certificate  of the vehicle and  also  the  examination  of the vehicle  by the MVI  but  during cross-examination  PW-1  has  failed to  say whether she  informed  the Company  in writing  that there was validity in the Fitness Certificate.  From  Ext.-5   copy  of seizurelist  exhibited by the complainant in the case it  reveals that after the accident they submitted  before the Police  the Fitness Certificate  of the alleged vehicle  having  validity period  upto  17/04/2017. This  goes to show that  the Complainant  side  also failed to show to the Police any paper regarding  the deposit of renewal  fee for Fitness Certificate .  As  such the repudiation  of the claim of the complainant  by the  O.P.  No.-1  does  not appear to  be  without any reason  because  the complainant has failed to prove that they  submitted anything  to the  O.P.  No.-1  regarding  payment of renewal fees  for Fitness Certificate  prior to the expiry date and examination of the vehicle by the  MVI.   However, as from the materials on record  it has come out that the complainant already took steps for extension of validity of Fitness Certificate prior to the expiry of  its  present  validity and the alleged vehicle was inspected accordingly  so  we are of the  view that the  complainant is entitled to get compensation for damages of the alleged vehicle from  O.P.  No.-1.  DW-2  Shri Santosh Garain, on the other hand,  in his evidence has stated that  O.P.  No.-2  is  only  the Financer of the alleged vehicle  and  if any compensation is  required to be paid  then  O.P.  No.-1  is solely  liable to pay the said compensation as they are the insurer of the vehicle.  It  also reveals  from  the  case  record  that  in the present case  the complainant has  not  prayed  for any relief from  O.P.  No.-2. 

                                             In view  of the above it is hold that  the complainant  is entitled to get from  O.P.  No.-1  Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. an award amounting to Rs.63,800/-  ( Rupees Sixty three thousand eight hundred ) only  being  compensation for damage of the vehicle and an amount of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand ) only towards litigation expenses.   The  O.P.  No.-1  shall pay the entire amount within  a period of sixty days  from  today  failing which  interest @ 9%  shall accrue  on  the amount from the date of this order till payment.

                                         In the result, with the above relief the case of the complainant  stands  allowed  on contest against  O.P.  No.-1.  However, the case  against O.P. No.-2  stands dismissed.

                                         Given under  the hand and seal of this  Commission on this 7th  day of  January’2022.