Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/183/2013

Vikash Kumar Ratna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Future General India, Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Other's - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

                                                Order

           

                    The complainant has filed his case of claim for Rs. 306456/- on 21-11-2013

The case of the complainant appears from complaint petition supported with an affidavit that he is a educated unemployed person and has purchased magic IRIS Jeep bearing Reg. No. BR06P-B-1604 for Rs. 2,86484/- for livelihood of his family on loan taken from O.p. 3 and has got insured his vehicle from O.p 1 & 2. He has further alleged that on 30-09-2012 his vehicle was dashed by unknown truck. Who was rashly & negligently derived his truck and by the said accident the passengers become injured out of them one became died during course of treatment and his vehicle was badly damaged. He informed the insurance company and ledged police case registered as Mohammadpur (Gopalganj) P.S. case No. 80/12 dt. 02/10/2012. The police has investigated the case and found true. The O.p has appointed his surveyor to examine & submit report. The surveyor demanded estimate of repair from where the vehicle was placed for repair and he received the estimate and directed the complainant to get repair his vehicle that all repairing cost will be paid by his company. His claim was numberd as CV256632 accordingly he has started repair of his vehicle on payment of Rs. 10000 and when the vehicle was repaired the cost came as 1,64053/-, accordingly he informed the opposite party who demanded papers by his letter dt. 28-02-2013. The complainant hs further alleged that without giving information the opposite party no.3 has seized his vehicle and informed him by letter dt. 11-07-2013. Further he was dragged for payment of claim by the insurance company meanwhile the insurance company has rejected his claim on 10-10-2013 under unreasonable grounds as such the complainant suffered loss of repair cost Rs. 164053/- and damages by not payment in time for Rs. 72403/- as well as other damages Rs. 50000/- with litigation cost Rs. 20000/- as such he as filed his case with aforesaid claim.

The complainant has filed Xerox copy of retail invoice dt. 11-05-2012, letter dt. 30-05-2012 issued from Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Repayment schedule, insurance paper, F.I.R. of Mohammodpur (Gopalganj) P.s case no 80/12 dt. 02-10-2012 under section 279/337/338/304A IPC, Receipt of payment Rs. 10000/- dt. 13-03-2013, Request letter dt. 28-02-2013 for documents, letter dt. 11-07-2013 symbolic possession notice, registration certificate, letter dt. 27-07-2013 issued from O.p mentioning there in that the claimant has violated the standard norms & procedure. Order dt. 04-01-2013 passed by the court of C.J.M. in P.s case no 80/12 dt. 02-10-2012 final form bearing no. 94/12 dt. 30-11-2012, proforma invoice of Repairing cost Rs. 164053/30, receipts dt. 13-04-2013, 14-03-2013, for Rs. 15000/-, Rs. 26316, & Rs. 46000 respectively which are annexure 1 to 14.

                                                            

In this case O.p No. 4 (Ideal Dealer) appeared and filed his w.s supported with an affidavit dt. 08-06-2015 alleged there in that the complaint is not maintainable against his. The case is suffers from nonjoinder & misjoinder of necessaries parties as he has been wrongly imploded as party in this case. The O.p has got no valid cause of action. The complainant is not his consumer. there is no allegation of non delivery of vehicle or  deficiency against him and no relief has been sought from against him and the O.p has relied on several decisions published in 1995 II CPJ I (SC), (1996) 4 SCC 704, II (201) CPJ 40 (NC) and has pray to dismiss the case.  

In this case O.p No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their w.s supported with an affidavit dt. 13-08-2015 mentioned there in that the contact of insurance is subject to the terms & condition and has further alleged that the O.p insurance company has repudiated the claim without any malice and based on legal maxim and has admitted that the accident of aforesaid vehicle which was on the said date was happened due to overcrowded passengers in the vehicle found on enquiry. Accordingly the complainant has violated the terms & conditions and on this basis they have pray to dismiss the case.

The O.p 1 & 2 have filed Xerox copy of certificate of insurance cum policy schedule, Bylaws, F.I.R. which are annexure 1 to 3

In this case O.p no. 3 also appeared and filed his w.s without any affidavit dt. 22-02-2016 alleged there in that the case is false frivolous and abuse at process of Law. He has nothing to do with the insurance claim as he is a financer of the vehicle and further alleged that he had issued symbolic possession notice to the complainant dt. 10-07-2013 as he is a regular defaulter of payment of monthly installment and has relied on the decisions published in 1998 (1) CPR 707, I (2013) CPJ 27 (NC), I (1991) CPJ 110 (NC), 1991 (1) CPR 2016 (NC), II (2005) CPJ 491 & decision of honourable state commission Maharashtra and on the aforesaid basis he has prayed to dismiss the case.

 The O.p.  No.- 4  also appeared & filed his written statement dated 08-06-2005 without affidavit alleged their in that he is not related with any claim of complainant. It is only against opposite party no.- 1 & 2. He has been wrongly pledged as party and relied on  the decisions published in 1995 II CPJ I (SC), 1996 (4) SCC 704, II 2001 CPJ 40 NC and prayer to dismiss the case with exemplary cost.

Considering the facts, circumstances, material available with record as well as allegation of respective parties the policy sum assured, period of insurance all are admitted by the O.p no 1 & 2 against whom the claim and relief sought for by the complainant. The accident is also admitted. Only the claim was repudiated on the basis of over loaded vehicle as per the terms & condition provided under agreement but in this regard no paper has been filed by the O.p 1 & 2 to corroborate/substantiate his objection that the vehicle was over loaded at the time of alleged accident. He has only filed Xerox copy of F.I.R. from which after careful scrutiny we do not find that the vehicle was overloaded. Only it has been mentioned by the informant that the four persons namely Mahendra Paswan, Sindeswar Rai, Kumari Devi, Mithilesh Devi & Chunchun Kumar have sustained injuries in the said accident. As such in owner believe the objection of O.p no 1 & 2 that the vehicle was overloaded is not sustainable. Other O.p have no concerned with the claim of complainant. He has filed Xerox copy of estimate invoice expenditure in repair of the said vehicle i.e, for Rs.-164053 only. on the aforesaid basis we are of the constrained view that the complainant is found able to prove his case with cogent and consistent evidences and his case is maintainable.         

Accordingly the case and the same is allowed and the O.p no 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 164053/- estimated cost expended in repair of the vehicle with interest @ 8% from its payment and the O.p 1 & 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 20000/- as physical, mental harassment as well as litigation cost. Both the payment should be made within 30 days of the order otherwise the complainant is entitled to get it recover from the process of law. The O.p no 3 & 4 are freed from the claim and case of the complainant