National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Niranjan Kumar Yadav vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 29 March, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2926 OF 2010 (Against the order dated 25.04.2008 in Appeal No. 186/2008 of the State Commission, Jharkhand) Niranjan Kumar Yadav Son of Shri Mittal Pd. Yadav Village- Pargarhi, P.S. Barahat Dist- Banka, Bihar .Petitioner Versus National Insurance Company Limited Asansol, P.O. Asansol, Dist- Burdwan (W.B.) .........Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopala Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 29.3.2011 ORDER
PER MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. The Revision Petition is filed against the order of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal in 186 of 2008. The Revision Petitioner is before us against concurrent orders of the two fora below.
2. The facts, as seen from the records of the case, are that the Revision Petitioner/Complainant had purchased a Bolero vehicle on 11.02.2005, which was insured with Respondent/OP, National Insurance Company, with effect from 11.02.2005 and was registered in the name of the Complainant on 28.02.2005. In between on 23.2.2005 itself, the vehicle was admittedly allowed to be used by the local MLA during the election on 23.02.2005. On this day, in the vicinity of a polling station, the vehicle was attacked and set on fire allegedly by the supporters of another political party. A first information report was also filed with the local police into this incident on 23.02.2005. The Complainant made a claim under the insurance policy but with no results. He therefore, took the matter before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Godda District, through a consumer complaint. The Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy relating to the usage of the vehicle.
3. We have perused the records and heard the counsels of the two parties, Mr. Gopal Prasad for the Revision Petitioner and Mr. R.B.Shami for the Respondent. The State Commission has confirmed the order of the District Forum with the following observation:-
For the reason discussed above we find and hold that the appellant violated of the law as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance. The insurance company/respondent by writing many letters gave opportunity to the appellant to produce paper to show that there was no violation of law and terms of the agreement. But he did not comply. Under that, circumstance the respondent repudiated the claim under insurance.
This action is not deficiency in service.
4. From the averments of the Revision Petitioner/Complainant in the revision petition itself, we find that the vehicle was being used for the purpose of election at the time of the incident. The State Commission has observed that from the records, including those of the investigation into the F.I.R, it is clear that on 23.2.2005 the vehicle was standing near booth No.101 of Amarpur, in violation of the order of the Election Commission preventing taking any vehicle near the polling booth, which was declared to be a prohibited area. On the contention of the present revision petitioner that the registration was already applied for and was pending with the registering authority, the State Commission has made the following categorical observations:-
If permanent registration cannot be done for the delay of the office of the registering authority then it must have temporary registration. Legality is the essence of all agreement. If it is violative of law any contract or agreement is bound to fail, may there be otherwise expressed provision in the terms and condition of the agreement or not. The appellant failed to show any temporary registration number. He also failed to show any receipt of the application for registration to prove that he had applied for registration before the mishap.
5. In view of this observation of the State Commission, the claim of the Revision Petitioner /Complainant that the registration was pending before the Registering Authority, loses all credibility.
6. For the reasons above, we conclude that there is no merit in this Revision Petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed and the impugned order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, confirmed. Under the circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.
.
(R.K.BATTA, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER S/-