1. The complaint has filed this case against the O.Ps. for not paying the insurance amount to him.

2. The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant is the registered owner of Motor Cycle bearing registration no. JH04F8137 and the said motor vehicle was insured with O.Ps through O.P. No. 3 bearing policy no. 54070431160A00003319 covering from 30.03.17 to 29.03.18. On 03.04.17 the aforesaid vehicle was stolen from court compound Dumka for which a case Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 49/17 u/s 379 of I.P.C. against unknown was registered and after investigation the police submitted final form in this case and found it to be true without clue and the said vehicle was not recovered.

3. The complainant submitted an application on 06.04.17 to O.P. No. 3 informing therein regarding the stolen of his vehicle and also claimed insured amount of the stolen vehicle and submitted all the documents and in spite of the required and relevant documents submitted to the O.P. but no clue receiving was supplied to the complainant by the O.P. No. 2 and 3 and the complainant is still deprived from his legal claim amount.

4. The complainant several times approached to the O.P. 2 and 3 for realization of his insured amount but the O.Ps did not take any steps for making payment of the insured amount to the complainant and at last the complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P. on 21.11.17 but the O.P. did not even bother to reply the said legal notice. The complainant has been harassed by the O.P. mentally and financially which amounts to the clear negligence and deficiency of the O.Ps in their services and it is deceptive practices made by the O.P. in their business or services.

5. The O.Ps have illegally deprived the complainant from his insured amount without any valid and legal reason which caused a lot of mental agony and huge financial loss to the complainanat. The cause of action on 03.04.17, 06.04.17, till today and be continued at Dumka. The complainant claims following amounts :-
   1. Principal amount of Rs 23,155
   2. Compensation of Rs 20,000
   3. Litigation Cost of Rs 5,000

Total Rs 48,155

And prayed that O.Ps may be directed jointly or severally to pay the insurance amount of Rs 23,155 to the complainant and also directed to pay jointly or severally to the complainant as compensation amount of Rs 20,000 for mental agony and financial loss and O.Ps may also be directed jointly or severally to pay rate of interest @ 18% p.a. of the insured amount to the complainant from 06.04.17 till date of final payment and further prayed that O.P. may also be directed to pay jointly and severally the litigation cost of Rs 5,000 to the complainant and any other relief or reliefs as claimed which complainant may be entitled.

6. It is not out of place to mention here that originally this case was filed by Kamal Chnadra Manjhi the husband of the complainant but during the pendency of the case Kamal Chnadra Manjhi died and the present complainant, Lakhi devi who is the wife of Kamal Chandra Manjhi was substituted in his place vide order dated 22.04.17 as successor of the complainant.

7. The O.P. no. 1, 2 and 3 the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared on 21.03.18 and filed their show cause. Considering therein that the case of the complainant is wholly misconceived, illegal and suppression of true facts and as such not maintanable in the eyes of law and further submitted that the motor cycle bearing registration no. JH048137 belonging to the complainant was previously insured by NIA Co. Ltd., Deoghar vide policy no. 54070431150100003102 covering period from 29.03.16 to 28.03.17 and thereafter the complainant submitted proposal form on 29.03.17 for renewal insurance of his said motor cycle before the O.P. No. 3 Mr. Kumar Mukesh, who is the agent of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Dumka.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant suppressing the true facts, falsely and fraudulently mentioned as his previous policy no. 3134 instead of his previous policy no. 3102 which already expired on 28.03.17 in the said proposal form which above previous policy related to Mahindra Bolero vehicle belonging to one Basant Kumar Mahato of Anguthia, P.S.- Fatehpur, Dist. – Jamtara covering period from 31.03.16 to 30.03.17.               

9. The O.P. in good faith on the basis of the proposal signed and submitted by the complainant the agent O.P. No. 3 issued Insurance Policy no. 54070431160100003319 covering period from 30.03.17 to 29.03.18  whereas the earlier policy of the complainant already expired on 28.03.17 and as such there is break in renewal of the policy. Thus, the break in policy and the terms and conditions for break policy as mentioned in proposal form not followed which is a serious violation of the terms and conditions of the polciy. It is further submitted that in the break policy, a new policy is issued after thorough inquiry and whereby taking proper impression of engine no. and chassis no. in the proposal form and further to take the photographs of the insured vehicle as per terms and conditions meant for break policy.

10. But since the complainant suppressed the true facts and as such the general procedures and terms and conditions of the break policy not followed and compiled in respect of the sais vehicle in question and in the above circumstances having come to know above irregularity and violation of the terms and conditions of the policy the claim of the complainant is not at all maintainable in law.

11.  In the above circumstances the case of the claim of the complainant is wholly misconceived and not tenable in the law and O.Ps are not at all liable to pay the alleged claim amount or any portion there off. And further prayed that the claim of the application being false and frivolous and fit to be rejected.

12. The main point for the determination in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as clamed!

                                                Findings

The complainant in support of his case filed oral and documentary evidence both. As oral witness he has filed the affidavit of following persons –

  CW1 – Kamal Chandra Manjhi

  CW2 – Nabagorai Manjhi

And has also filed the following documentary evidences which are as follows –

Exhibit 1 – Xerox copy of certified copy of order sheet of Dumka Town P.S. Case no. 49/17 in which the CGM Dumka has eccepted the final form.

Exhibit 2 – is the xeros copy of certified copy of F.I.R. of Dumka town, P.S. Case no. 49/17

Exhibit 3 – is the xerox copy of certified copy of Charge sheet of Dumka Town P.S. Case no. 49/17

Exhibit 4 – is the policy schedule com certificate of Inusrance of vehcile no. JH04F8137 from 30.03.17 to 29.03.18

Exhibit 5 – is the photocopy of the letter of Kamal Chnadra Manjhi given to Branch Manager, New India Insurance dt. 06.04.17

Exhibit 6 – is the letter of photocopy dt. 02.09.13 regarding the cancellation of hypothecation of the vehicle

Exhibit 7 – is the photocopy of certified of registration of vehicle no. JH04F8137

Exhibit 8 – is the photocopy of driving licence of kamla Chandra Manjhi

Exhibit 9 – is the legal notice dt. 21.11.17

Exhibit 10 – is the postal receit

Exhibit 11 – is the xerox copy of the letter written by kamal Chandra Manjhi to D.T.O. Dumka.

13. The O.P. in support of his case has filed some documentary evidence which are as follows:-

Exhibit A - is the policy schedule cum certificate of Insurance of the vehicle JH04F8137 for the period from 30.03.17 to 29.03.18

Exhibit B – is the is the policy schedule cum certificate of Insurance of vehicle no. JH4F8137 for the period 29.03.16 to 28.03.17

Exhibit C – is the is also policy schedule cum certificate of insurance (provide car package policy) of the vehicle JH04C7387 for the period of 31.03.16 to 30.03.17

Exhibit D – is the package policy cum liabilities only policy.

Apart from that the O.P. has not filed any other oral or documentary evidences or defence.

14. Heard the Learned Counsel of both the parties and also perused the entire case record and evidences oral and documentary adduced on behalf of both the parties and carefully going through the entire case record and submissions adduced on behalf of both the parties. From carefully scrutinizing and analyzing the entire documents and submission minutely oral and documentary both.

15. It is admitted that the complainant vehicle no. JH04F8137 was insured by the O.Ps and also issued the policy cum schedule certificate it appears from Exhibit and Exhibit 4. And from the perusal of Exhibit 1,2 and 3 which is F.I.R. order sheet and charge sheet of Dumka town P.S. Case no. 49/17 that the vehicle in question was stolen but it was recovered and Exhibit 3 clearly indicates that the case was true but no clue. There was no recovery of the theft vehicle by the police and vehicle in question was stolen on 03.04.17 abd soon after the F.I.R. was lodged and the O.Ps were also informed and the complainant submitted his form and claim on 06.04.17 and also filed the required legal and necesssray documents but the repudation of claim of the complainant by the O.P. is  merely on the grounf  that the complainant  has not diclosed the fact regarding previous policy and renewal of the insurance policy and he concelaed the facts that previoulsy his policy was broken by 1 day and it is a serious violation of the terms and conditions of the policy regarding this allegation the O.P. has not adduced any documents with break policy is a serious violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

16. He has not shown in his policy that breakage is a violation policy of terms and conditions. Simply writing show cause is not sufficient. The O.P. has to establish this fact and brought some documents and terms and conditions before this commission. The O.P. in his show cause in Para 6 has clearly disclosed this fact that O.P. no. 3 in good faith and on the basis of proposals signed and submitted by the complainant issued the policy covering period on 30.03.17 to 29.03.18. And during this period the said vehicle was insured. Exhibit 4 clearly indicates that the value of the vehicle was insured was Rs 23,155. The O.P. has not adduced any other documents regarding the breakage of the policy and the plea of the O.P. is not sustainable.

17. The complainant has established this fact beyond any reasonable doubt that his vehicle was insured with O.P. by the O.Ps which is apparent from Exhibit 4 and Exhibit A. And it is also established by Exhibit 1, 2 and 3 that vehicle in question was stolen and the case of the complainant was true but no clue and the concerned vehicle was not recovered by the police and the vehicle in question was stolen during the policy period covering from 30.03.17 to 29.03.18 and the vehicle was stolen on 03.04.17 that is within the insured period and in that circumstances the O.P. is bound to compensate the complainant.

18. From the aforesaid discussion we come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as he claim. It is therefore, we                               

Ordered

                         That O.P. No. 1,2 and 3 are directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs 23,155 to the complainant and they are also directed to pay 12% p.a. interest on the said amount from 06.04.17 till the date of final payment. The O.P. No. 1, 2 and 3 are also directed to pay compensation amount of Rs 20,000 to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment. The O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 are also directed to pay litigation of Rs 5,000 to the complainant. The O.P. No. 1,2 and 3 are also directed to pay the above amount to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

                        Thus, this case and the same is decided accordingly in favour of the complainant on contest.

                        Let a copy of this order be served to both the parties free of cost.

                                   Let this document be deposited in the record room and also to be shown on the website of the commission.