F I N A L O R D E R
The complainant filed this case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.Ps. to pay policy amount of the insurance of Rs.1,00,000/- for theft of the vehicle bearing No.WB-60G/8524 and compensation of Rs.1,000/- for harassment and mental pain.
In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Motorcycle (Bajaj Discover), bearing No. WB-60G/8524. Complainant also purchased insurance policy No.OG13-2414-1802-00000-347 under Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, O.Ps. for the period 24.04.2012 to 23.04.2013. O.P. No.2 issued the policy in favour of the complainant. On 29.09.2012 the said Motorcycle kept under lock & key in the courtyard of Amulya Barman beside NH-34 and went inside. After 15 minutes, when he returned, he found the Motorcycle was stolen though it was kept with due care and safety inside that house. On 30.09.2012 he lodged complaint at Raiganj PS and case 869/12 dated 30.09.2012 U/s 379 IPC was started. Then he intimated the claim benefit for theft of the Motorcycle to O.P. No.2, Branch Manager of O.P./ Insurance Company at Malda on 07.10.2012. O.P. No.1 then issued a letter dated 24.11.2012 to the petitioner regretting their inability to admit any liability under the insurance policy on the allegation that the vehicle was left uncared for in open space/ unauthorized parking area. The O.P. did not believe the story of theft and repudiated the claim of petitioner. Therefore the petitioner filed this complaint for getting the relief as mentioned above.
O.P. No.1 did not contests the case in spite of receiving notice and the case is heard ex-parte against O.P. No.1. O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing written version where they categorically denied all the allegations stating inter alia that the claim petition is not maintainable and disputed the purchase of the said motor vehicle and also purchase the insurance policy. O.Ps. specially denied the theft of the Motorbike on 29.09.2012 at 07:00 P.M. from house of Amulya Barman at Raiganj or lodging of FIR at Raiganj PS or submission of Final Report by the police or the matter was intimated to the Insurance Company at Malda on 07.10.2012. At the same time O.P. admits that letter dated 24.11.2012 was issued by this O.P. to the complainant informing inability to admit any liability under the claim as the vehicle was left in open space/ unauthorized parking area unsafe with ignition key. That driver contributed to the loss of the vehicle as in the policy condition No.4, it is stated specifically the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle. Therefore the loss and damage of the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured own risk. O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.
To prove his case, the complainant has filed examination-in-chief, oral evidence and some photocopies of documents like FIR lodged at Raiganj PS on 30.09.12, Challan of purchase of motor bike on 17.04.12, tax invoice of the said vehicle, certificate of registration, tax token, copy of insurance policy and copy of Final Report dated 30.11.12, etc. Complainant was also submitted memo of evidence as PW1 and O.P. No.2 submits questionnaires to which complainant also files answer to the questionnaires.
On the other hand the O.Ps. filed some documents. The letter dated 21.01.13 repudiating the liability of the insurer showing grounds, the copy of FIR, claim letter dt. 07.10.13 to OP NO. 2 showing the statement of complainant that he forgetfully left the vehicle with the key attached there on and left for a short while.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
On careful perusal of complaint, documents and evidence it appears that the complainant a resident of Uttar Dinajpur purchased the Motorcycle and also insurance policy valid for the period from 24.04.12 to 23.04.13. That on 29.09.12 at 7 PM he went to the house of one Amulya Barman at Raiganj, left the Motorbike with lock & key standing in the courtyard of that house beside NH-34. After 15 minutes he returned only to find that some unknown miscreants had stolen away the vehicle. In the next day he lodged complaint at Raiganj PS. A person was arrested but for insufficient evidence police submitted final report on 30.11.12. On 07.10.12 he intimated the theft to the O.P./ Insurance Company but O.P. by its letter dt. 24.11.12 repudiated the claim disbelieving the theft and alleging that the vehicle left in open space without safety.
O.P. submitted the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2444/2013 and 2534/2012 and also FA No. 321/2005, regarding delayed FIR, driver did not take care & safeguard as violation of policy condition. In the instant case the theft of the vehicle at night of 29.09.12 was reported in the next day on 30.09.12 at 17:15 hrs. It is incumbent upon the insured to inform police about the theft immediately say within 24 hours, otherwise valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. The matter should be informed to the insurer within a day or two, but it was informed on 07.10.2013. So there was delay in lodging FIR at the Raiganj PS and also informing the insurance company. In the context of theft the matter should be informed ‘immediately’, the word has to be construed strictly to make the insurance company liable to pay the compensation.
Moreover, petitioner cited the judgment of National Commission as reported in 2014-CJ13(NC). Complainant stated that in the instant case the complainant left the vehicle for about 15 minutes, not for a short while, with ignition key attached to the vehicle which he forgot to remove the keys from the vehicle and the vehicle was made standing inside the courtyard of a house is not necessarily in safe and secured condition. Admittedly, the said house was beside NH-34 a very busy area. The insured violated the condition No.4 of the terms of the policy by not taking reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss. The information made to the Branch Manager of the insurance company on 07.10.2013 by the complainant also reveals the fact, the circumstances in which the theft of the vehicle took place. He also stated that he inadvertently did not inform the fact, of leaving the key attached to the vehicle, at the time of making FIR on 30.09.2012 .
In view of the above discussions we find that the complainant has not been able to prove his case and he did not take care and safety of the vehicle violating the policy condition. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the complaint case being No.90/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.
