Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 29.02.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,26,000/- with statutory interest @ 18%.
- To pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty thousand only ) as compensation.
- To pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-
It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased Pioggio Ape 3 wheeler vehicle on 06.05.2009 after payment of full consideration amount of Rs. 1,45,530/- ( vide annexure – 1 ) and the aforesaid vehicle was insured on the same day with opposite party no. 1 after payment of full premium amount ( vide annexure – 2).
It has been further asserted that vehicle has been hypothecated to opposite party no. 2 as he has taken the loan for purchase of the aforesaid vehicle. it is further case of the complainant that on 13.05.2009 one Ravi Bhushan Kumar was driving the vehicle when an unknown person reserved the vehicle and took seat in the vehicle. It is further asserted that when vehicle was passing through Harnauth then that person stopped the vehicle for refreshment. The driver of the said vehicle also took tea and Pan with the said man who had reserved the vehicle and thereafter the driver became unconscious and he was also pushed from the vehicle. The driver regained his consciousness after 3 days i.e. on 16.05.2009 and thereafter a F.I.R. was registered on 17.05.2009 being Chandi P.S. case no. 96/09 U/s 379 vide annexure – 3. The police submitted a charge sheet being no. 1260/09 dated 28.07.2009 stating therein that occurrence is true but clueless. The aforesaid charge sheet has been annexed as annexure – 4.
Annexure – 5 is the intimation to opposite party no. 1 and annexure – 6 is intimation to opposite party no. 2 with regard to the aforesaid occurrence.
It is further case of the complainant that opposite party no. 1 has rejected the claim of the complainant stating as follows, “ the aforesaid claim is repudiated by the competent authority, D.O. – I, Patna as the vehicle was neither registered nor held any route permit at the time of accident.”
On behalf of the opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed, in para – 7 of the aforesaid written statement the opposite party no. 1 has asserted as follows, “ that it is further stated by the deponent that at the time of lodging FIR, no paper of any kind with regard to registration or route permit of the vehicle were submitted before the officer – in – charge of the said police station ( Chandi P.S. ) nor the complainant and the informant have not stated anywhere that the written report before the said police station.”
On behalf of opposite party no. 2 a show cause has been filed stating therein that out standing dues of the Bank of the said vehicle loan as on 31.05.2012 is Rs. 96,290.52/-.
It has been further asserted by opposite party no. 1 that the aforesaid case must have been filed before District Consumer Forum, Nalanda at Biharshairf instead of this Forum at Patna.
The facts asserted by the parties have been mentioned in the forgoing paragraphs.
In nut cell the aforesaid vehicle was purchased on 06.05.2009 and stolen on 13.05.2009 after making the driver senseless and the FIR has been lodged on 17.05.2009.
The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that from bare perusal of annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that when the aforesaid vehicle was purchased the agency has given a temporary number which has been imprinted on the top of the aforesaid receipt being No. 1 – PAT/APE/0141 dated 06.05.2009.
The aforesaid fact asserted by the complainant has not been disputed by the other side.
It is needless to say that after the purchase of the vehicle the vehicle is allowed to ply for some time even without registration number.
It is needless to say that in similar circumstances the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court have been pleased to direct to settle the case on non standard basis where there is breach of warranty and condition of policy.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Para – 13 of citation reported in 2008 (7) SCALE 351, National Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Nitin Khandelwal have been pleased to hold is as follows, “ The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the Insurance Policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.”
In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstance of the case and in the light of aforesaid citation referred above we find and hold that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 1.
Hence we direct the opposite party no. 1 to settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis by paying 75% of the insurance claim ( Insured amount ) to the complainant through opposite party no. 2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till its final payment.
We make it clear that as the vehicle was hypothecated to opposite party no. 2 hence the opposite party no. 2 will be at liberty to firstly adjust the amount against payment of loan and thereafter if there is excess amount opposite party no. 2 will act as per law.
Opposite party no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of three months.
Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
