This appeal is directed against the final order delivered by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur dated 20/2/2019 in connection with CC no. 67 of 2019. The fact of the case in nut shell is that the appellant/complainant Shiv Kumar Gupta having a business of seasonal stocks like Jute, etc. purchased a burglary insurance policy from Oriental insurance company for carrying the business smoothly. On 18/11/2015 in the night, a theft took place in his go-down causing theft of 20 quintals of stock jutes from the go-down for which the complainant sustained a loss about rupees one lakh and he informed the matter to concern parties and registered a written complaint before the local police station where a regular case was started under section 379 of IPC and the complainant also intimated the said burglary to the Insurance Company in due time. The investigation of the police case was ended to a charge sheet and most of the lost products could not be recovered by the police and for that reason, he preferred a claim before the Insurance company for compensation. But the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on the ground that the premium policy was not renewed by paying the policy premium in due time and the complaint could not prove the stocks of jutes which was alleged to have theft away and for that reason, the claim was not sustained as per the report of the insurance company. So, he registered a consumer complaint against Insurance Company that is OP No. 1 and 2 and against his banker Bangiya Gramin Bikash Bank. The Consumer complaint was contested by all the three Ops. The Insurance Company has challenged the consumer complaint on the ground that at the point of time no policy was existent due to non-payment of premium in due time. The OP no. 3 bank in their version, mentioned that the case was not maintainable which was barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence. The Ld. Forum has recorded the evidence and after hearing all sides and after going through the required documents has come to a conclusion, that the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of premium in due time and the complainant also has failed to prove that 20 quintal of jute was stagged at that point of time.

Accordingly, the consumer case was dismissed. Being aggrieved with this order, this appeal follows, that the finding of the Ld. Forum was based on misappreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be set aside. The appeal was registered in due time and the notices of appeal was sent to all the contesting respondents. All the contesting respondents has contested the appeal through their Ld. Advocates appointed by them. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellant did not conduct the hearing as none represent for the appellant in consecutive dates, and the commission after hearing the arguments of respondents has decided the appeal on its own merit as follows.

Decision with reasons,

After hearing the Ld. Advocates and after going through the finding of the Ld. Forum in its final order and after going through the documents which was relied by the contesting parties before the Ld. Forum, the commission came to a conclusion that in the FIR registered before the concern police station, the complaint mentioned that 18 to 20 quintals jute was theft away on 18/11/2015 in the night. During the course of investigation of the case, 5 kg stollen jutes could be recovered by the police from the accused persons of that case and the investigation was ended to a charge sheet under section 468/379/34 of IPC. So, the finding of the Ld. Forum that the complainant could not prove about the storage of stock of jutes is completely baseless as because out of 20 quintal of jutes, 5 quintal was recovered by the police. On the other hand, after going through the entire documents it is cleared that the Bangiya Gramin Bikash Bank was the banker of the complainant where the account of the complainant was lying on. From the said account total rupees 1601/- in the name of Shiv Kumar Gupta was credited to the CD account no 5443050100267 stood in the name of Oriental Insurance Company Raiganj Branch on 21/3/2015. The policy period confined between 27/02/2015 and 26/02/2016 while the premium amount was credited to the fund of the insurance company on 21/03/2015. So, the policy became lapse due to non credital of the policy amount by the Bangiya Gramin Bikash Bank before 27/02/2015 though debiting the same from the account of the complainant/appellant after getting renewal notice on 04/02/2015. So in our view the policy was not in subsistent at the point of time of theft of the Jute. The Insurance Company has got no liability to the insured for any burglary took place in his go-down on 18/11/2015. So, in that perspective the finding of the Ld. Forum is correct and rock based. So, in apparent the order of Ld. Forum is not liable to be interfered in the appeal. Thus, the appeal devoids of any merit.

Hence it is,

ordered,

that the instant appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on merit without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The order of this appeal be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F Uttar Dinajpur by e-mail.