Ld Advocates for the parties are present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 3 pages 2 separate sheet of papers.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the Complainant is a permanently residing within this Jurisdiction, and his address is described in the cause title.  The Complainant is the owner of vehicle being No. WBV-30S/0933(Tata Nano) and the said vehicle was under insurance covered by O.P. vide Policy No. 0317003116P1068-34483 for the period 24.08.2016 to 23.08.2017. The said vehicle vide No. WB-30S/0933 (Tata Nano) was set on fire by unruly mob on 07.05.2017 and was destroyed by fire. In this respect an F.I.R. was lodged in Ghatsila P.S. vide F.I.R. No. -34/17 dt. 10.05.2017 and I.O. of the said case submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. The Complainant has submitted all the documents to O.P. for grant of Insurance claim in favour of the complainant. The Complainant faces loss/damages which has been cause by O.P. and unfair acts and deficiency in service by the O.P. resulting a loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- plus interest from the date of filing of this Complaint plus litigation cost. The Advocate of the complainant sent a letter dated 06.08.2021 to O.P. for receiving the claim in favour of the Complainant but the O.P. did not care to settle the claim inspite of receiving  the said letter on 10.08.2021. The cause of action arose on and from 10.08.2021 when the O.P. did not pay the claim inspite of receiving the letter of Advocate. The Complainant is residing in the district of Purba Medinipur which is within the jurisdiction of this forum of District of Purba Medinipur. The Complainant prays for Rs. 2,00,000/- as insurance claim plus interest from the date of filing of this Compliant plus litigation cost from the O.P. .

The op has contested the case by filing Written version thereof. The sum and substance of the written version can be stated as follows: all contents of the Complaint save and except the matter on record are denied by this Opposite Party. Save and except the specifically admitted in the written version no part of the complaint are deem to be admitted by this O.P. This O.P. issued the insurance policy in favour of Sk. Sahajahan in respect of his vehicle No.WB 30S/0933 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The Condition policy prescribed the notice of incident shall be given in written immediately to the company but complainant did not inform the O.P. immediately which is statutory violation of the conditions of policy. The Complainant informed on 09.10.2018 though the occurrence took place on 07.05.2017. The O.P. insurance was unable to spot investigation as the information was received one year after the occurrence. The vehicle in question is the private car and the policy was issued as private car policy. The vehicle was used for commercial purpose by selling the lottery ticket which is statutory violation of the policy. Therefore, the op prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

Upon reading the materials on record following points for determination are framed.

Points for determination are:                                                  

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?    

2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by op, evidence of both parties and other documents. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the Ld counsel of rival parties.

Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the complainant has filed this case claiming his status as insured against the op insurer. The bundle of facts suggests that the complainant has cause of action to initiate case. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

The crux of the case of the complainant ,as it is scrutinized from the evidence, is that the Complainant is the owner of vehicle being No. WBV-30S/0933(Tata Nano) and the said vehicle was under insurance covered by O.P. vide Policy No. 0317003116P1068-34483 for the period 24.08.2016 to 23.08.2017. The said vehicle WB-30S/0933 (Tata Nano) was set on fire by unruly mob on 07.05.2017 and was destroyed by fire. In this respect an F.I.R. was lodged in Ghatsila P.S. vide F.I.R. No. -34/17 dt. 10.05.2017 and I.O. of the said case submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. The Complainant has submitted all the documents to O.P. for grant of Insurance claim in favour of the complainant. The Advocate of the complainant sent a letter dated 06.08.2021 to O.P. for receiving the claim in favour of the Complainant but the O.P. did not care to settle the claim inspite of receiving  the said letter on 10.08.2021. On the other hand the op has agitated its contention on twofold grounds firstly that the complainant informed the matter of accident after more than 17 months, so no investigation could be made and secondly, the vehicle was used for commercial purpose for selling the lottery ticket which is statutory violation of the policy. Now, we find that the contentions of the op have got substance, there  is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the op on that score. The complainant has violated the terms of insurance policy. The Charge sheet of the case of Ghatsila P.S. vide F.I.R. No. -34/17 dt. 10.05.2017, supports the version of the op, The Charge Sheet of Ghatsila P.S. vide F.I.R. No. -34/17 dt. 10.05.2017 does not give any reflection about the whereabouts of the vehicle in question; it left the version in respect of custody place of vehicle blank ( seized and kept in the…….etc)The complaint is also silent about it. As such the complainant has failed to bring home any element of deficiency of service against the op. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

 Accordingly, both the points are disposed of.

Thus, the case does not succeed.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/110 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op. No order as to costs is passed.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the parties free of cost.