The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Mosharaf Ali S/o. Late Bahadev Ali of Vill. Jasarattola, P.O.Manikchak, Dist. Malda under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered before this Forum as Consumer Case No. 98/2017.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-66L /4665 on 28/01/2017. The vehicle was stolen from the premises of Mojid Sk. Tea Stall. Thereafter, the complainant immediately intimated the fact of theft of vehicle to the concerned P.S. Manikchak but the G.D. Entry Officer did not lodge any complaint and expressed that after his official enquiry the officer will lodge the complaint. Thereafter, a lapse of one month the Manikchak P.S. started a Case No. 4917 dt.07/02/2017 u/s. 379 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 544/2017. After the incident the complainant informed the Insurance Company on 28/01/2017 over telephone about the theft of the vehicle but the employee of the Insurance Company refused to register any complain and expressed that without a G.D. Entry number the employee is unable to register any complaint. After receiving the registration number from the Manikchak P.S. the O.P. informed the Insurance Company on 10/02/2017. The vehicle was insured from 21/09/2016 to 20/09/2017 but the claim of the O.P. was not ordered nor repudiated the claim of the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant has come to this Forum to redress his grievances.
The petition has been contested by the O.P. by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the Insurance Company contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The claim is bad as there was a gross violation of terms and condition of the policy.
The further defense case is that the claim has been duly repudiated by the Insurance Company. The definite defense case is that according to the terms and condition of the policy after the incident the complainant will inform the Insurance Company but the complainant informed the Police Station after the lapse of 13 days as well as the Office of the O.P. As such the claim was legally repudiated by the Insurance Company. Concerning such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
During the trial the complainant Mosharaf Ali was examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant.
Now the point for determination:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not ?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted that on the date of incident of theft of vehicle the complainant informed the Manikchak P.S. but the Duty Officer did not lodge the written complaint as FIR and assured that after official enquiry he will register the case and as such he registered the case on 07/02/2017. The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant further argued that on 28/01/2017 the complainant informed the Insurance Company over telephone but the employee who received the telephone did not register any compliant as G.D number was not mentioned and the staff expressed his inability to lodge the complaint for want of G.D number.
The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that according to the terms and condition of the policy after the theft of the vehicle the complainant will inform the concerned P.S. where the theft was committed and to the Insurance Company but on10/02/2017 the O.P. i.e. the Insurance Company received the complaint from the complainant. There was more than 10 days delay to inform the O.P. Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle in question.
The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that sufficient explanation has been given for lodging the delay. It is not understood why the complainant did not inform the Supdt. of Police, Malda as and when the Duty Officer of Manikchak P.S. did not register the case on 28/01/2017. The complainant may send any letter to the S.P. Malda about the theft of the vehicle. It is also not understood why the complainant did not lodge any written complaint as and when the employee of Insurance Company refused to lodge any complaint as G.D. number was not mentioned. On the following day the complainant may send any letter by post or by Registered Post with A.D. or to make delivery any complaint about the theft of the vehicle by hand after obtaining the copy of information from the Insurance Company. But nothing was done.
So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed for gross violation of the terms and condition of the policy.
It is well settled principle of Law that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted for the benefit of the consumer. It is no doubt that the consumer Protection Act was enacted for the benefit of the consumer. In a case law reported in “Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017” by the Hon’ble Apex Court it was held that mere technical ground the claim cannot be defeated.
It is no doubt that the Consumer Protection Act,1986 was passed for the benefit of the consumer but the Consumer Protection Act, was not passed to defeat the Provision of Consumer Protection Act by lodging false claim by any consumer.
C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, ordered that
that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.
