1. The petitioner has filed this claim petition against opposite parties for not paying the claim of the claimant, ‘Petitioner’.
2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner happens to be the purchaser and owner of John Deer Tractor from Sindri Fertilizer store, Dumka and after receipt of the said tractor with registered no. JH04G3614 valid and insured from                          Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd. that is O.P no. 1 & 2 and the insurance policy was valid from 14.12.14 to 13.12.15. Unfortunately the said tractor met with an accident on 08.11.15 on the main road going through Lakrapahari to Gujisimal at about 2 pm. And due to that accident the tractor became completely damaged and the petitioner immediately carried the said tractor to the Sindri Fertilizers store, Dumka who happens to be the dealer of the General Insurance co. ltd. situated at court Compound, Dumka. And on receipt of the said damaged tractor, the garage authority on verification submitted a vivid damaged report along with the estimated cost of repairing worth Rs 65,601.49 and was handed over to the petitioner so that he may claim said damage amount from O.P no. 1 & 2. The petitioner also reported the accident matter to Allahabad Bank, main branch, Dumka, being the financer and the insurer. But unfortunately till now no necessary action was taken by the Insurance Company and the financer and no payment has yet been paid to petitioner (Claimant). As such the petitioner sustained a loss of Rs 2,50,000 and apart from that the claimant also faced mental agony causing the loss of      Rs 50,000.
3. The cause of action of the claim arose on 11.10.17 when the petitioner sent a pleader notice for the payment of the said amount but no reply was given. In the above circumstances the petitioner prayed with a direction may be given to the Insurance Company to make a payment of Rs 250,000 together with cost of mental agony and repairing amount borne by petitioner claim worth Rs 65,601.49 only.
4. The O.P no. 1 & 2 that is Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared and filed his so cause on 11.06.18 stating therein that the complaint petition does not disclose any cause of action against this opposite parties and further stated that complaint petition is wrong and fabulous because there is no registered F.I.R of the said accidental vehicle within the concerning Police station by the driver or owner of the concerning tractor JH04G3614 so, the story of this complaint petition is completely wrong and dismiss the same. As such the accident is completely false, fabulous and concocted as never such accident took place any where otherwise that said accident should have been registered or reported to the concerning Police station but the complainant did not mention in this regard in the complainant petition there about. It is further submitted that the said vehicle was carrying in garage for repairing purposes then a question arise here is that under what circumstances a damaged tractor was moved to Sindri Fertilizer Store, Court Compound, Dumka from village Gujisimal under Dumka Muffasil Police Station. In fact this amounts to negligence on the part of the driver and owner of the vehicle solely. It is further submitted that as a matter of procedure the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 appointed the surveyor to ascertain vehicle and the same submitted the damaged report and estimated cost of the accidental vehicle. But in this case, no surveyor by the O.P no. 1 & 2 was appointed and no repairing cost and estimate cost was submitted by the surveyor in this case before the Insurance Company, so the repairing cost and estimated cost of the said accidental vehicle produced by the complainant is vague and wrong. 
5. It is further submitted that as the claim of the petitioner is fabulous and contradictory one and the complainant has never informed the present answering parties by anyway for settlements or any payment in this case. That it is humbly submitted that the complainant never tried to settlement the dispute hence denied. And it is further submitted that the bills, receipts produced by the complainant are not reliable evidences, hence denied. Apart from that the opposite parties that is Insurance Company has sent a letter to the complainant, Biren Pal four times that is on 20.11.15, 04.12.15, 03.01.16 and 13.01.16 to submit some documents for settlement claim for accidental loss of the said vehicle and annexed the aforesaid letter along with so cause. But the complainant never heed towards settlement of the claim. As such the relief sought by the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. And further prayed to accept the so cause of the complainant and dismiss the complainant’s case with cost. Main points for the determination in this case that whether the complainant is entitled the relief or reliefs as claimed

                                   Findings

The complainant in support of his case filed certain documents which are as follows :-

     Exhibit 1 –  F.I.R of Dumka Muffassil Police station case no. 134/15 dt. 08.11.15       

      Exhibit 2 – Charge sheet of said F.I.R

Exhibit 3 – Original Insurance Policy by Universal Sampo Insurance Company which is for the period from 14.12.14 to 13.12.15

Exhibit 4 – is the pleader notice dt. 15.12.17

      Exhibit 5 – is the pleader notice dt. 11.10.17

Exhibit 6 – is written information regarding the accident by complainant on which the claim was registered as CL - 15059183 dt.

                  13.11.12

Exhibit 7 – is the photocopy of insurance policy that is ‘Exhibit 3’

Exhibit 8 – is the estimate given by Sindri Fertilizers store, Dumka dt. 17.02.16 of vehicle JH04G3614

 Exhibit 9 – is the retail invoice issued by Messers Anuj Automobile dt. 02.04.16 of Rs 1294.

 Exhibit 10 – Is the cash memo issued by Sri Sai Enterprises dt. 31.03.16 of Rs 6200

Exhibit 11 – Is the receipt dt. 05.04.16 of Rs 6000

Exhibit 12 – is the photocopy of receipt by Dumka Engineering Works dt. 06.05.16 of Rs 16,500

Exhibit 13 – is retail invoice by Sindri Fertilizers dt. 03.05.16 of Rs 694

                     Apart from that the complainant examined himself as PW1, Biren Pal and filed his affidavit as a witness.

6. Heard the Learned Council of both the parties also bills, entire case, record and documents it is upheld of both the parties, it is admitted fact that the vehicle in question registered no. JH04G3614 was insured by the O.P no. 1 & 2 which is Exhibit no. 3. From the perusal of Exhibit 3 it is apparent that tractor that is vehicle no. JH04G3614 was bonafide and validly insured by O.P no. 1 & 2 for period 14.12.14 to 13.12.15 and from perusal of Exhibit 1 & 2 which is F.I.R of Dumka Muffassil Police Station case no. 135/15 dt. 08.11.15 in which it is clearly mentioned that tractor no. JH04G3614 was met with an accident on the main road going through near village Lakrapahari to Gujisimal on 08.11.12 at about 2 pm. And Exhibit no. 2 is none but the charge sheet of the said F.I.R. Apparently the said vehicle was met with an accident on the said date and due to that accident the said tractor was also damaged. And due to damage the said vehicle was brought to Sindri Fertilizers stores, Dumka who was the dealer of the John Deer Tractor situated at Court Compound, Dumka and the said Sindri Fertilizers store after due inspection of the damaged vehicle prepared the estimate amount of       Rs 65601.49 which is apparent from the perusal of Exhibit 8. After that the petitioner also reported the matter about the accident to the concerned bank that is Allahabad Bank from which he was financed for purchasing the said tractor and by which the Insurance policy was taken for the concerned Bank immediately registered his claim request as                CL - 15059183 dt. 13.11.15 as it is apparent from Exhibit 6. It is crystal clear that the complainant just after the accident made known the Insurance Company and also the Bank concerned and registered his claim within time that is 13.11.15.
7. On another side the O.P in his so cause in Para 9 has clearly mentioned that as a matter of procedure in the claim request, the opposite parties appointed the surveyor to ascertain the loss of the accidental vehicle. But in this case the surveyor was not appointed by the O.P no. 1 & 2 and no repairing cost or estimated cost was submitted by the surveyor in this case before the Insurance Company. So that the repairing cost produced by the complainant is vague and wrong.
8. But this O.Ps on 18.07.22 has filed the surveyor report dt. 13.01.16 regarding the vehicle no. JH04G3614 John Deer Tractor in which he has clearly mentioned that repair cost, other painted cost or replaced assembly were nil.  Apparently this surveyor has not found any damage in the vehicle. As such this opposite party has made contradictory statement before this court. On one hand he states that he has not appointed surveyor and on the other hand he files the surveyor report. As such the conduct of the O.P is doubtful and contradictory one. And on the other hand the complainant has adduced himself as a witness and also filed the F.I.R and charge sheet which shows that the vehicle met with an accident on 08.11.15 at about 2 pm and due to that accident one person died for which the charge sheet was also submitted and during that accident this tractor concerned was also badly damaged for which the complainant has filed   estimated and other cash memos in support of his case.
9. Considering above facts and   circumstances and conduct of the O.Ps which is doubtful and the petitioner complainant has fully and properly established his case and the complainant deliberately, negligently to harass the complainant withhold the claim of the claimant illegally and the complainant has established his claim fully and justifiably. Considering above facts and petition discussed, we come to the conclusion that it is therefore,

          Ordered

                    That O.P no. 2 is hereby directed to pay the petitioner Rs 2,50,000 as cost and Rs 50,000 as mental agony and Rs 5,000 as              cost of the suit with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of this case and till payment.

                     Thus, this case is decided in favour of complainant on contest. This case is disposed off accordingly.

                     Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.