The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Divisional Manager, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Kolkata and O.P No.2 is the Branch Manager, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Ltd., Balasore.
1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant had insured his vehicle (Bike) ‘Karizma’ R-white colour having Regd. No.OD-05-4327 and had insured the same under the O.Ps. But on 04.06.2015, the said vehicle was stolen, while the Complainant parked the same outside and waited at the Railway Station to receive his nephew (Rashan Saha). Thereafter, the Complainant lodged F.I.R with Sahadevkhunta Police Station regarding stolen of vehicle, but I.I.C of said Police Station refused to register the same. Then the Complainant filed a case before the S.D.J.M, Balasore vide I.I.C No.748/15 and as per direction of S.D.J.M, the I.I.C of Sahadevkhunta Police Station registered the above case vide C.T No.1516/15 U/s.379 Cr. P.C and prepared final charge sheet U/s.379, but the theft vehicle has not been traced out till date. Thereafter, the Complainant has filed a complaint before O.Ps about the stolen vehicle having valid insurance, but the O.Ps refused to settle the claim. Hence, the Complainant filed this case. Prayer for award of claim amount along with interest and compensation for deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps.
2. The O.Ps appeared through their Advocate and filed written version denied the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant neither intimated the Police nor the Insurer about the alleged theft immediately, for which he has violated Condition No.1 of the Policy. There is 59 days of delay in lodging the F.I.R and 14 days in reporting to the Insurance Company, for which he is not entitled to get any relief.
3. On perusal of the case record and the documents filed by both the contesting Parties, it is noticed that:-
(i) The vehicle was stolen on 04.06.2015 as per petition filed by the Complainant and the Complainant filed a case before S.D.J.M, Balasore vide I.C.C No.748/15 U/s.379 Cr. P.C to this effect on 13.07.2015.
(ii) The Complainant has filed a F.I.R with Sahadevkhunta Police Station on 30.07.2015 vide F.I.R No.187/2015 U/s.379 Cr. P.C. Final report prepared and submitted by the I.O. as F.R.T (Final Report True)- no clue.
(iii) Thus, the O.Ps repudiated the claim and intimated the Complainant vide their letter dt.22.02.2015.
(iv) The Advocate for the O.Ps vide their W/V filed in this case, where they have submitted that the Complainant has neither intimated the Police nor the insurer about the alleged theft immediately and thereby he has violated the condition No.1 of the Policy, for which these O.Ps are not liable to pay the schedule of claim. Condition No.1 which is read as: “Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and there after the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require.” The same Condition No.1 further states that: “In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the Offender.”
4. After hearing both the sides and going through the materials available in this case record filed by the Parties, it shows that the delay in lodging F.I.R was due to non-receiving of the F.I.R by the concerned Police Station claiming to have no jurisdiction and ultimately it was registered on the basis upon complaint case instituted by the Complainant and direction given by the Ld. SDJM, Balasore to the concerned Police Station U/s.156(3) Cr. P.C. So in the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is delay in lodging report to the Police. But, it is argued by the Adv. for O.Ps that when there is delay in informing the insurer about the theft of the vehicle and it is near about 14 days, it clearly violated the terms and condition No.1 of the Policy, for which the insurer not in condition to co-operate the Police in searching of the theft vehicle. The Ld. Adv. of Complainant is silent regarding delay in informing the insurer about the theft of the vehicle. The Adv. for the O.Ps in support of his argument relied upon the authority reported in 2014(I) CPR 427 (N.C) in the case of Ramesh Chandra, S/o. Sri Munshi Ram (Vs) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., where in it has been held that in case of theft of vehicle, where there is delay in lodging the report, the Complainant/ Petitioner had failed to take proper care to protect the interest of the Respondent-Insurance Company, for which the Insurance Company was justifying in repudiating the claim. So in this circumstances, the case in hand is of similar nature, for which Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Therefore, the Consumer Case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 22nd day of March, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
