Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.01.2017
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 the sum insured with interest @ 12% per annum from 01.08.2012 till full and final payment.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he had purchased one Mahindra Bolero for his personal use. The aforesaid vehicle was registered as BR – 01PC- 7292. The aforesaid vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 1 i.e. National Insurance Company vide annexure – 2 which was valid for the period from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013.
It is further case of the complainant that the complainant after properly locking the steering and removing the key after switching off the vehicle went to his house after parking the aforesaid vehicle in front of house of complainant’s friend namely Prabhat Ranjan. The aforesaid vehicle was parked at safe place to avoid obstruction etc. The complainant’s friend heard the sound of starting of engine of vehicle. Thereafter, he immediately came out of his house and found that the vehicle is not at its place. Then he informed the complainant and the complainant’s friend Prabhat Ranjan approached the Kankarbagh Police and lodged written information leading to registration of Kankarbagh P.S. case no. 126/12 dated 24.03.2012 U/s 379 IPC against unknown. Thereafter the complainant informed the opposite party no. 2 about the theft of vehicle and preferred a claim in a prescribed manner.
The grievance of the complainant is that opposite party no. 1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide annexure – 4.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed stating therein that the complainant had sold the vehicle to Prabhat Ranjan who had lodged the F.I.R. It has been further stated that no information was given to the insurance company and as such the complainant has violated the terms of insurance and hence he is not liable to receive the insurance amount as no step was taken by the complainant U/s 157 of the M.V. Act.
-
It has been submitted by the complainant that at the time of selling the insurance policy the opposite parties have not explained the condition of the insurance.
It has been further submitted that in the proposal from all aspect of the insurance policy were not explained to him.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the fact and circumstances of the case he is entitled to receive the insurance amount and as such necessary direction may be given to opposite parties in this regard.
The learned counsel for the insurance has vehemently submitted that as the complainant has sold his vehicle to one Prabhat Ranjan without complying the provision of section 257 of M.V. Act. Hence he is not entitled to receive the insurance amount as he has committed serious breach of condition of the policy.
We have perused the judicial record in the light of aforementioned submissions.
From bare perusal of annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that the aforesaid vehicle was registered in the name of Rajesh Singh Rana i.e. complainant. The annexure – 2 which is policy paper clearly disclose the name of this complainant i.e. Rajesh Singh Rana. From bare perusal of annexure – 2 it is crystal clear that the aforesaid vehicle was insured in the name of Rajesh Singh Rana. Annexure – 3 is the F.I.R. which was given to the police by one Prabhat Ranjan. From bare perusal of annexure – 3 it is crystal clear that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased through true value motors on 01.03.2012 and the aforesaid vehicle was stolen from the house of Prabhat Ranjan. No any paper with regard to investigation report of the police had been filed.
It is needless to say that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant and after insurance it was sold to one Prabhat Ranjan as will appear from annexure – 3. Hence the complainant has committed serious breach of policy condition. Apart from it in absence of any investigation report we are in dark about the real fact.
For the reason stated above we do not find any deficiency on the part of opposite parties and as such this complaint stands dismissed.
Member President
