Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/116

Md. Faiyajuddin - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Abdul Rouf Ansari , Basant Kumar Aggarwal

05 Mar 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of damage caused to the Truck by fire, for payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs. 60,000/-  and Rs. 20,000/-  as compensation, communication charges and litigation cost respectively to the complainant.

 

2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he is owner of Truck TATA LPT bearing Registration No. JH-09-G-5347 which was insured with O.P. for the period from 31.12.2015 to 31.12.2016 . Further case is that during Ram Navami Procession mob became violent and set the vehicle on fire on 15.04.2016 for which F.I.R. was registered. Claim was made with the O.P. who repudiated it hence case has been filed with above mentioned prayer.

 

3. O.P. has filed W.S. mentioning therein that the vehicle was parked at the side of the road on 15.04.2016 as per FIR, but Surveyor has reported that on the day of occurrence complainant was having no valid permit hence alleged claim has been treated as no claim by the competent authority because vehicle was being used violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence claim has been rightly refused.

 

4. In support of the claim complainant has produced photo copy of following documents:-

 

1. Photo copy of insurance policy.                   Annexure-1
2. Photo copy of certificate of fitness valid till 11.01.2017 .
   •  
3. Photo copy of Tax token for the period till 20.04.2016.
   •  
4. Photo copy of the certificate of registration.  
   •  
5. Photo copy of temporary permit  from 13.12.2015 to 12.04.2016.                                                      Annexure-5
6. Photo copy of the News paper cutting.       Annexure-6
7. Photo copy of the photograph of damaged truck.
   •  
8. Photo copy of the certified copy of FIR of Marafari P.S. case No. 14/2016.                                        Annexure-8
9. Certified copy of the charge sheet filed in above noted P.S. Case.

5. On the other hand no any evidence either oral or documentary has been produced by the O.P.
6. Only point for consideration by this Commission is whether the repudiation of claim of the complainant by the O.P. is justified and lawful in the present case ? And whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?
7. Following facts are admitted facts by the parties:-

1. That on the relevant date complainant was owner of the vehicle concerned.
2. That on the relevant date (i.e. on 15.04.2016) vehicle was insured with the O.P.
3. That vehicle was damaged by fire by the mob during Ram Navami procession.

8. Only controversy is that on 15.04.2016 there was no permit for the vehicle concerned to ply it and on that very day it has been burnt. On this aspect it has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that said vehicle was parked on the side of the road near house of the complainant and at that very place occurrence has been committed.
9. On the above aspect it is important to note hare that the address of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint petition is disclosing the fact that the place where occurrence of fire was occurred is situate in the vicinity of the residence of the complainant. Further it is important to note here that FIR has been registered on the basis of written report submitted by the deputed Magistrate in which it has been mentioned that said Truck was parked in the side of the road. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any manipulation on the part of the complainant in the FIR. The IDV value of the vehicle concerned as per insurance policy is Rs. 2,40,000/-. Surveyor Report on which basis claim has been refused has not been brought on record by the O.P. though it is well in his possession and custody. Nor the O.P. has taken any step to bring it on record. Another important fact is that for parking of a vehicle near residence of the owner no permit is required.  Hence, in light of above discussion we may safely say that on 15.04.2016 concerned vehicle was not being played on the road rather it was parked in the side of the road for which no permit of the Transport Authority is required. Hence, refusal of the claim by the O.P. is not justified rather there is deficiency in service by the O.P.
10.    Accordingly, the prayer made by the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 2,40,000/-(Rs. two lac fourty thousand) only to the complainant as claim amount within 60 days from today, failing which he will pay interest thereon @ 10% per annum from 16.08.2017 (the date on which complaint was filed) till realization of the money. Further O.P. is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- within 60 days from today.