The complainant Smt. Kumari Priti Prabha has filed this complaint petition against Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Motijheel Muz. and one another (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 1,65,000/- for damage caused to her vehicle with 12 % p.a. interest from the date of accident till realization, Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
The, brief, facts of the case is that the school Maxi Tata-470 bearing No.BR06-5451 of complainant was going to Muzaffarpur from Patna on 04-07-2001 and the same met with an accident at about 9 A.M. at Fakuli canal bridge, so the same become damage wholly. The further case is that the driver and conductor of the vehicle informed the local o.p Phakuli. The further case is that the complainant filed a written petition in the office of o.ps on the same date that is on 14-07-2001 and requested for local inspection from the company. The further case is that the vehicle was insured with o.p company vide policy No.- 331207-2614 and the same was valid since 28-07-2000 to 27-07-2001. Further case is that the o.ps got inspected the p.o. by sending his agent but they didn’t submit any statement regarding the damage till 10 to 12 days i.e on 17-07-2001. The complainant sent a written petition to o.ps to depute/appoint surveyor. The further case is that the surveyor Anand Kumar, appointed by o.ps inspected the spot and the complainant got inspected the damaged vehicle, got inspected the damaged vehicle by surveyor Sri Ram Bahadur Singh and the complainant supplied him all the papers. The further case is that the complainant filed/ sent an application on 14-02-2002 to o.p no.3 for providing Rs. 1,65,000/- as compensation but o.p no.2 didn’t any pay claimed amount of the complainant so the complainant sent a legal notice through his lawyer. In response to the legal notice, the o.p informed that the claim of the complainant has been dismissed. O.P has not paid the claimed amount so the complainant filed this complaint petition.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition – photocopy of petition filed by Jai Prakash Choudhary in Fakuli o.p. annexure-1, photocopy of petition filed by complainant to oriental insurance company for vehicle No. BR-06-5451 annexure- 2, photocopy of petition filed by Kr. Preeti Prabha before BM Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for appointment of surveyhor to access the loss of vehicle No-BR06-5451 annexure-3-A, Photocopy of Estimate of loss of vehicle no. BR-06-5451 annexure 3-B to D, photocopy of Certificate cum policy schedule of vehicle No- BR-06-5451 capacity commercial vehicle annexure-4-, photocopy of certificate of Registration of vehicle No/ BR-5451 not visible annexure-5, photocopy of Tax Token annexure-6, photocopy of petition of Manoj Kumar to Area Manager, Oriental Insurance Com. regarding final payment of vehicle No. BR-06-5451- annexure-7, photocopy of letter of Divisional Manager, to Mrs. Preeti Prabha regarding difference in vehicle no. seating capacity of passengers, fitness certificate, fake, no permit annexure-8, photocopy of Letter dated 29-12-2003 by Divisional Manager to Sunil Kr. Tiwari about Motor theft claim annexure-9, photocopy of Written Petition filed by complainant to Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Com. In respect of payment of claim of vehicle No BR-06-5451 annexure-10,
On issuance of notices, o.p no. 2 appeared and filed their w.s. on 28-04-2006 with prayer to reject the claim petition with special cost to the o.p. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the case is not legally maintainable and the complainant has got no cause of action or right to sue. It has been further mentioned that the case is bad for defective for parties, specially for non-joinder of city B.M. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. City Branch office South Gandhi Maidan ( Patna- insurer of the policy) and mis-joinder of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Motijheel Muzaffarpur. It has been further mentioned in the w.s. that the complainant has not furnished the correct document and wanted to cheat the insurance company for illegal gain so insurance company has rightly rejected the claim petition of the claimant. It has been further mentioned that after perusal of annexure-4 and 5, it is crystal clear that the Oriental Insurance Company city Branch office-VI South Gandhi Maidan has insured the vehicle bearing No- BR06M5451 of Smt. Kumari Priti Prabha of Bharat Pura Kothi, Budha Colony, Patna. One and the complainant has filed the claim against the vehicle No.-BR06-5451 of Kumari Priti Prabha Salhishpur, P.S.-Ahiyapur, District-Muzaffarpur which was not insured by the o.p.
It has been further mentioned that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain. the suit the address of vehicle owner as well as insurer Branch both under the jurisdiction of Patna District Forum. It has been further mentioned that after perusal of annexure-3 that is letter sent by o.p no.-2 to the complainant dated 06-02-2003 it is crystal clear.
- that the complainant has not duly filled claim petition (b) that the complainant has not clearify the difference in registration No. in vehicle. (c) that the complainant has not clarified about difference between the seating capacity of R.C. Book in D.T.O Muzaffarpur Office and in Insurance policy (d) that the complainant has filed fake fitness certificate for her illegal gain and also for cheating the insurance company. (e) that the complainant has failed to produce the road permit (f) that the complaint has never filed any document whether she received any claim from previous insurer or not.
It has been further mentioned that the o.p No.-2 has issued the fresh claim form and requested to fill all the columns and clarify all the above mentioned raised question, for early disposal of the claim but the complainant has evading to do so, for her illegal gain. It has been further mentioned that the o.p had never insurance any vehicle bearing registration bearing No.-BR065451, so there is no question to pay any farthing against the claim of vehicle BR06-5451.
O.P No.-1 also appeared and filed petition to delete his name.
The complainant has mentioned the vehicle in complaint petition as school Maxi Tata 470 bearing No.-BR06-5451. In written petition submitted to officer incharge Fakuli O.p (annexure-1), the same no. of vehicle has been mentioned. In annexure no.2, 3, 3A, 3B, and 7 the sane vehicle No.- has been mentioned as BR065451. The complainant has annexed as annexure-4 photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule in which the vehicle no. has been mentioned as BR-06-M5451, seating capacity 6+2. Which is different from vehicle no. as mentioned in complaint petition and other documents. The complainant has also annexed Annexure-8, letter of Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in which he has mentioned the following observations.
- Vehicle is insured under Registration No.- BR06M5451 and o verification of R.C of concerned D.T.O which also shows registration No.-BR06M5451 whereas the no. plate of accidental vehicle claim form and other paper submitted by you shows the vehicle no.-BR06-5451. Please clarify the same to us why there is difference in registration no.
- On verification of R.C. book from D.T.O Muzaffarpur, it shows seating capacity as 22 in all whereas insurance was done for 7 passenger in all and photocopy of R.C. submitted shows seating capacity 5-7 passenger in all, why this difference please explain?
- Fitness certificate submitted by you expiring on 8th August 2001, on verification from D.T.O Muzaffarpur has been found fake.
- No. permit is given by you, please produce road permit.
- Claim form submitted by you is not completely filled e.g Additional Information column, T.P. Injury property damage column- injury to driver/occupant, unit columns. Hence, we are sending a fresh claim form to you. Please fill up all the column of claim form and sent it to us.
- Whether there was any claim with previous insurer or not and an what was any SONUS/males earned with the previous insurer.
The complainant has not adduced any evidence to clarify the above matter. On the other hand the o.p has filed the true copy/certified copy of insurance certificate to show that in insurance certificate the vehicle No.-BR06M5451., Seating capacity 6 +2 has been mentioned and the same has been insured with city Branch Office South Gandhi Maidan Patna which has not been made party in this complaint petition. The claim of insurance rests on the Principle of utmost good faith. On perusal of documents submitted on behalf of complainant it appears that complainant has not come before the forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts of No of the vehicle. In the complaint itself it has been mentioned that the vehicle in question was of Tata 407 Maxi and the same was used for carrying students. In the certificate cum policy schedule (annexure-4)., It has been further mentioned that policy was for passengers carrying , commercial vehicle. So the vehicle was used is commercial vehicle and as such the complaint petition does not within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act- 1986 and as such this complaint petition is not maintainable.
On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that this complaint petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the claim petition is dismissed.
