Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/47

Islam Miya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Kumar Mishra

09 Dec 2021

ORDER

1       Complainant has filed this case for direction to O.Ps. to pay insurance claim of Rs. 1936842.00 and also to pay compensation for the physical and mental harassment to the complainant.

2       The case of the complainant is that he is a registered owner of the truck No. JH-09V-0952 which was being driven by his driver Munna Singh and said truck was insured with O.P. No.1 with insurance value of Rs. 1936842.00. Further case is that on 30-12-2014 at about 12:30 AM while driver of the truck was coming with truck from Ranchi to Bokaro and reached  on NH30 near Sandhui Ghati then four and five miscreants boarded on other vehicle arrived there and stopped the truck and forced the driver and cleaner to leave the truck, thereafter, they fled away with the truck of the complainant. About the occurrence of Dakaiti , Gola P.S. Case No. 200/2014 was registered against unknown person in which Police submitted FRT. It is further case that information about accident was given to O.Ps. through telephone and in writing on 02-01-2015 on which O.Ps. parties issued letter dt. 11-03-2016 for settlement of the claim on Rs. 1451131.00 after deduction of the IDV value on the ground related  to late intimation. In spite of repeated request and issuance of legal notice problem was not solved, hence case has been filed before this commission.

3       On issuance of notice O.P. No.1 appeared and filed W.S. mentioning therein that they have approved the claim of Rs. 1451131.00, accordingly subrogation and indemnity Bond have been executed by the complainant on None judicial Stamp Paper for the said amount as full and final payment. Hence present case is not maintainable. Complainant has all ready received the payment through bank account, hence, he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed.

4       O.P. No. 2 and 3 have appeared much before but they have not filed any W.S. hence, both have been debarred from filing W.S. However, written notes of argument has been filed on their behalf.

5       In respect to claim complainant has filed copy of documents which are as follow-

1. Xerox Copy of Authorization certificate dt. 21-11-2014 etc   (Annexure 1).

2 Photo copy of Tax Token (Annexure 1/1)

3. Xerox copy of fitness certificate (Annexure 1/2).

4. Xerox copy of driving license of the driver (Annexure 1/3).

5. Xerox copy of Certificate of Insurance policy in two pages(Annexure 2).

 6. Xerox copy of FIR (Annexure 3).

7.  Xerox of FRT dt. 30-12-2014 (Annexure 4).

6       on the other hand O.P. No.1  has filed copy of the letter of Subrogation (Annexure A), copy of Indemnity Bond (Annexure B), copy of Motor Claim Loss Voucher (Annexure C)and copy of letter dt. 23-10-2017 (Annexure D) showing payment of settled amount to the financer.

7       On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that fallowing facts are admitted facts:-

A- That complainant was registered owner of the Truck No. JH09V-0952.

B- That said Truck was insured with O.P. No.1 for the period 30.-8.2014 to 29.08.2015.

C- That said Truck was purchased after finance by O.P. No.2 and 3.

D- That said Truck was looted away by the miscreants on 30.12.2014 at 12:30 A.M.

E- That after investigation Police has submitted Final Form mentioning therein that occurrence is true but no clue.

F- That claim for insurance amount was made and O.P. No.1 settled it for Rs. 14,51,131/- by reduction of the claim amount Rs. 19,36,842/-.

8       On perusal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties it is apparent that complainant has executed letter of Subrogation on 04.03.2016, Indemnity Bond on 04.03.2016 and also executed Motor Claim Loss Voucher (Annexure A,B and C respectively) showing that he agreed on settlement of claim of Rs. 14,51,131/- accordingly on his direction payment of said amount has been made to the financer vide (Annexure D) towards the full and final settlement of the claim. It reveals from the compliant petition that about Annexure A, B, C and D it is silent. No where it has been mentioned in the complaint petition regarding execution of above mentioned documents by the complainant. In this way complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and on execution of those documents his alleged claim shall be deemed to be waived and complainant shall be stopped from saying anything else against those documents rather it will operate  as Estoppel. No where it has been alleged that those documents have been executed by playing fraud.

9       In light of above discussion we are of the opinion that complainant has suppressed material facts and tried to mislead this Commission to obtain order in his favour inspite of execution of Annexure C towards full and final settlement of the claim. Therefore, in our opinion claim of the complainant is not maintainable at all accordingly it is rejected.