DATE OF DISPOSAL: 20.12.2023

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission.

            2. The above named complainant is the owner to the Truck/Tipper of Tata Motors make LPT 3118 TCBS III, bearing Registration No. OD-07-AJ-7947 having chasis No.MA466412B5A01645 and Engine No. IIA 62980642 and was purchased with the Finance of Sri Ram City Finance Company and same was insured at O.P. vide policy No. P0023400020/4103/100213 valid period from 03.06.2022 to 02.06.2023. The above said vehicle of complainant was handed over to one Dilip Kumar Ram, S/O MangarBhuiya resident of MangarBhuiya, Resident of vill/Po: Bariyath, Sirsi, Ps: Hazaribagah, Dist: Hazaribagh Pin: 825402, Jharkhand (Adhar No. 6958 6697 5286) Mobile No.9938257400 under an agreement dated 18.04.2022 for plying the vehicle for commercial purpose. Unfortunately the Dillip Kumar Ram has taken away/stolen the above said vehicle on and from 18.04.2022, his where about are not known to the complainant even at his known address. But for the reasons of his illegal acts the complainant has lodged an FIR on 15.12.2022 for legal action under sections 378, 405, 406 and 420 IPC before IIC, Golantra for the crimes of Dilip Kumar Ram and for recovery of the said vehicle. After lodging the above said FIR the complainant has approached the O.P. for the insurance claim on 16.12.2022. Accordingly the agents of O.P. has reached to the place of complainant and collected relevant documents on 20.12.2023 for early settlement of the claim so that the complainant can pay the entire EMIs to Finance of Sri Ram City Finance Company at an early dates. Inspite of telephonic contacts to the O.P. they did not respond positively till date and procrastinating the matter on one ground or other. For the reasons stated above for the said crime involving, deficiency of services casings unfair trade practice by all the O.P. above, and for payment of insured amounts amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant due to wrongful acts of O.P. is causing is to be estimated acts and to make good the same in terms of compensationfor the losses sustained by the at the time of disposal of his complaint and also the O.Ps are further liable to pay to the loss of business and for physical and mental harassment at Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, and including the litigation costs. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to pass orders for payment of assured amount payable by the O.P to the complainant Rs.11,00,000/- to the O.Ps and for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in the best interest of justice.

            3. The O.P. filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the above case is not maintainable for non-joinder of financer of the alleged vehicle OD-07-AJ-7947, and hence the case suffers for non-joinder of necessary parities. The complainant’s case is not maintainable as he has been using the trucks/vehicle for commercial purposes including the case vehicle OD-07-AJ-7947. He was knowingly handed over the above alleged vehicle to one Dilip Kumar Ram of Vill/P.O: Bariyath, Sirsi, within Hajaribagh P.S/District Jhakhanda by executing an agreement with the above said Dilip Kumar Ram on 18.04.2022 for plying the above alleged vehicle for commercial purpose, and hence the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P.Act, and the present dispute is also not maintainable under the C.P.Act. The complainant has executed an agreement with the above Dilip Kumar Ram on 18.04.2022 and handed over the physical possession of the above vehicle to Dilip Kumar Ram without the knowledge of the financer, and after handed over possession of the above vehicle, the complainant has no insurable interests over the above said vehicle. The above alleged vehicle theft on 18.04.2022. Soon after the above incident the complainant has not taken any steps to lodges a complaint before the concerned police station, or the complainant also did not choose to give intimation to the Financer or to this O.P. soon after the incident, and hence the O.P. has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the loss is not coming under the scope of coverage of the above Motor insurance policy, and fore that the claim is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. After long lapse of more than eight months of the alleged incident, the complainant has lodged FIR before Golanthara P.S. on 15.12.2022 and also notsubmitted any such intimation to this O.P. and for thatthe present case is not maintainable as per the contract of the insurance policy and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. The cause of action against Insurance Company would arise when a claim is lodged after which either no decision is given or delayed decision is given or a claim is wholly or partially repudiated. In the present case no such intimation of loss lodged or no such claim was ever raised with the Insurance company for which no occasion arose before it to render any service. Hence the complainant is not backed by any legitimate cause of action. For the purpose of the present litigation a cause of action was attempted to invent by filing the present complaint, which did not possess any merit. The complainant has taken the insurance policy along with its terms and conditions and he is well aware about the non-admissible of the above claim, and the complainant with an ulterior motive taking the advantage of reported accident is trying to make fortune out of it, and hence the present claim made by the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The present claim is not maintainable as the complainant has not been intimated about the handover of the above vehicle to the financer, or has not intimated the theft of the above vehicle to the concern police soon after the alleged incident/or has not given any intimation to this O.P. The complainant has not approached with clean hands, and has deliberately suppressed the material evidence, and has concealed the truth for the purpose of the claim, and hence the complaint is not entitled for any such relief. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

            4. On perusal of the case record, it reveals that, after issuance of notice in the case in hand; the complainant has not attended the Commission to proceed further and in any point of time steps also not filed by the Complainant. To prevent further delay in the case,hence the Commission treated this case be disposed of on merit.

5. Accordingly, we heard argument from the Ld. Counsel for the OP at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, and documents available in the case record.The complainant stated in the complaint petition supported by affidavit that the vehicle is plying for commercial purpose.The insured vehicle was handed over to one Dillip Kumar Ram under an agreement dt:18.04.2022 by the Complainant. The insurance policy was issued on 03.06.2022. The FIR vide no.:0470/Dated:15.12.2022, u/s.406 of IPCofGolanthara Police Station, Berhampur District disclosed that, the complainant has filed the FIR through Registered Post for the criminal breach of trust.And the complainant insured the vehicle with the OP intentionally for the said commercial purpose.This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Branch Manager, SanghiBrothers versus Raj Kumar Jaiswal 2011 (2) CPR 365 such as: “Vehicle purchased for commercial purpose cannot be indemnified under Consumer Protection Act”. And also another citation passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Mahipal Singh versus S.D.O. OPcity south Division 2012 (1) CPR 44 such as: “Any person who approaches court or judicial Forum with unclean hands and conceals materials facts, is not entitled to relief under law”.

            In the light of the above decision of law we dismissed the case. No order as to cost and compensation.

   This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to the respective parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986or the copy of this order be downloaded from www.confonet.nic.in to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 20.12.2023