Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased a two wheeler (motor cycle) Yamaha Fazer, Register No. WB07E9467, Chasis No. MEI455041B2011180 and Engine No. 4554011123 for Rs. 79,500/- and the said vehicle was insured under the op no.1 and op no.2 financed the said motor cycle. But the aforesaid two wheeler was duly registered and was valid up to 13.02.2026 and tax of the said two wheeler is also cleared up to 14.02.2026 and complainant had been paying insurance premium from 2011 onwards for the period from 2013 to 2014 and paid premium of Rs. 1,169/- in the year 2013-2014 within time by the complainant.
Complainant further submitted that earlier complainant used to reside at Aloka Abasan B3, T26, Rajarhat Action Area, Kolkata – 700156 and the aforesaid two wheeler used to remain parked at the compound of the aforesaid complex. Suddenly on the morning of 09.02.2014 when he was going to work he found that two wheeler parked in the building complex. But on the night of 09.02.2014 when complainant returned from work, he found that his motor cycle was not in the building complex. So, he went to his house and found out the keys of the said motor cycle was still in the house and after searching for about one hour and receiving information of his motor cycle having been driven away by unknown persons as seen by the people of his locality. Complainant was confirmed that motor cycle had been stolen and all the original documents were inside the vehicle itself and such original documents had also been lost.
Thereafter on the night of 09.02.2014 complainant went to the Kolkata Labour Complex Police Station to register the complaint of theft. But the concerned police station did not register the complaint on the ground that complainant failed to show any original document of the motor cycle and complainant was asked by the police station to bring the lost documents from the Motor Vehicles Department and then only complaint will be registered.
Thereafter complainant made appropriate application before the Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain the lost documents and Motor Vehicles Department took two or three days to obtain the documents and complainant went to the said police station on 16.02.2014 when his complaint was registered and FIR was lodged and complainant lodged a G.D. being No. 683/2014 which was treated as an FIR by the KLC P.S. being No. 558/2014 under Section 379 I.P.C.
As because the documents were not available the complainant was forced to lodge the FIR on 16.02.2014 after receiving all the documents from the Motor Vehicles Department and the concerned police station had willfully and to hide their inefficiency and inaction had misrepresented the FIR claiming the offence was occurred on 14.02.2014 and had even forced the complainant to write in his complaint that the incident was taken place on 14.02.2014. As because the op no.1 is liable to settle the insurance claim of the complainant for which op no.2 informed op no.1 on 27.02.2014 about the loss of such vehicle with a prayer to settle the insurance claim of the complainant and the sum assured for the insurance for 2013-2014 by the complainant was Rs. 50,920/- and the cause of theft is covered by the condition of the insurance policy.
But by that letter dated 17.03.2014 op no.1 replied of the letter of complainant dated 27.02.2014 wherein they stated that as the policy was valid from 11.02.2013 to 10.02.2014 and the theft as per FIR has not taken place within the policy period then to let know the op no.1 why the claim of the complainant should not be repudiated. On 27.03.2014 another purported letter issued by the op no.1 that as because the letter dated 17.03.2014 was not replied therefore the insurance claim of the complainant cannot be settled.
Complainant further stated that due to laches of the police authority the date of loss was misrepresented by the KLC police station and complainant takes it on oath that the vehicle was lost on 09.02.2014 and not on 14.02.2014 as alleged by the police. Complainant further stated that it is the duty of the op no.1 to cause an enquiry into the matter and to bring out the true facts of the case before issuing any purported communication to the complainant and in the present case practically op by a deceitful manner did not settle the claim and for which complainant has appeared before this Forum for redressal against op insurance company.
On the other hand op insurance company by foiling written statement submitted that the alleged theft actually occurred on 14.02.2014 i.e, after the expiry of the aforesaid insurance policy and considering that fact the lost was not covered by the said insurance policy and complainant stated a false story that the police insisted him to lodge G.D./FIR after collecting the duplicate documents of two wheeler from Transport Authority and on the contrary complainant applied for duplicate copy to the Transport Authority on 20.02.2014 but lodged the GD on 14.02.2014. Police drawn up FIR on 16.02.2014 and thereafter complainant informed the incident to the insurance company on 27.02.2014 and for which under any circumstances op has no liability to consider that claim and legally it is not applicable for which it was not considered and in fact the entire allegation of the complainant against the op no.1 is false and fabricated and truth is that as per FIR theft was committed on 14.02.2014 that after the expiry of the insurance policy issued by the unchallenging op (midnight of 10.02.2014). So the present complaint is not maintainable.
Further op no.2 Bank Authority submitted that they have nothing to say because they only financed for purchasing the same to the complainant and it was registered no doubt and on full payment by the complainant NOC was issued on 02.11.2011 and handed over all the relevant documents to the complainant and save and except what is the matter of record op no.2 has nothing to say and he is not a necessary party and wrongly he has made a party in this case because complainant is no more a consumer under op no.2 and for which the complaint should be dismissed.
] Decision with reasons
After thorough study of the complaint and written version and also considering the materials on record and further the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties it is clear that no doubt complainant purchased the vehicle bearing No. WB07E9467 after taking finance from the op no.2 and truth is that op no.2 has already confirmed that complainant cleared all installments and found that against their loan and op no.2 already issued NOC on 02.11.2011 to the complainant and all documents handed over to the complainant and complainant has not challenged that part of version of the op. So, it is clear that op no.2 is not a necessary party in this case and fact remains that there is no relationship in between the complainant and op no.2 as consumer and service provider.
But regarding the whole grievance of the complainant it is clear that complainant’s said motor cycle was stolen and complainant as per complaint that it was stolen on 09.02.2014 and he went to KLC P.S. but they did not accept it for want of document. Then complainant specifically submitted FIR with some document when theft was occurred on 14.02.2014. Anyhow if we believe the complainant’s allegation then it is clear that O.C. KLC has adopted an unfair practice.
Fact remains that no police station can claim any document at the time of any GDE regarding any information of theft, because sometime the documents are stolen along with vehicle. So, considering that fact we are convinced to hold that OC of KLC adopted unfair practice. But on the other hand we have gathered from the written version of the op no.1 that complainant tried to convince that after collecting duplicate copy from the transport authority, he lodged the FIR on 14.02.2014. But it is proved that actually complainant applied for duplicate copy to the Transport Authority on 20.02.2014. Then invariably the submission of the complainant is that he collected the duplicate copy from the Transport Authority on 14.02.2014 is completely baseless submission.
Another factor is that FIR was drawn on 14.02.2014 but complainant reported the matter to the insurance company on 27.02.2014 but the reason reported for the same at such belated stage has not been explained by the complainant. Most interesting factor is that when the motor cycle was stolen, complainant went to the police station but police did not accept the FIR and forthwith complainant reported the matter in writing to the Police Commissioner and the insurance company but complainant did not take any such step.
Truth is that on the night of 10.02.2014 the valid period of the said policy expired. But we are unable to understand for what reason complainant did not report the matter to the insurance company on the very date of 10.02.2014 about theft. When fact remains that theft was committed on 09.02.2014. So, apparently as per FIR before OC, KLC op no.1 is not liable to pay the settle claim because on that date there was no valid insurance policy against the said document.
But considering the entire fact and circumstances of the allegation of the complainant we find that a thorough enquiry should be done by the CID West Bengal in this regard for searching out the said vehicle and the allegation of the complainant against the police station and in this regard invariably insurance company ought to have lodged a complaint before the CID and that has not been done. Considering all the above fact and circumstances we find that the whole matter shall be further adjudicated by the CID to search out the motor cycle if required and fact remains ops are very much reluctant to receive the theft information in most of the cases but the present case is a mere example.
Accordingly we are passing such final order and to decide of this claim case.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op no.1 and same is dismissed against the op no.2.
DIG, CID West Bengal is requested to make a thorough enquiry about the present theft case pending before this Forum and to search out the said vehicle and submit report whether KLC police station refused to note down the date of theft on 09.02.2014 but forced the complainant to note on 14.02.2014 and after thorough enquiry submit truthful report in this regard to this Forum within two months from the date of receipt of this order and insurance company shall take all such steps in this regard by supplying the entire documents to the DIG CID to take such step and to complete the investigation and submit investigation report to this Forum within two months from the date of receipt of this order with the copy of the order complaint of the complainant of this case shall be sent for proper investigation of this complaint by the complainant against KLC police station and for searching out this vehicle. On receipt of the report if it is found that theft was committed on 09.02.2014 in that case op no.1 insurance company shall have to dispose of the claim application finally by handing over insured amount because up to 10.02.2014 the insurance policy was admittedly valid as admitted by op no.1 and same shall be disposed by the op no.1 on receipt of the report of the DIG CID West Bengal.
