Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member                 

Date of Order : 07.08.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-

1. To pay the cost of vehicle i.e Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
3. To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the complainant is the owner of Vikram Tempo BR – 1AB – 9488. The complainant gave the tempo in question to one Vinay Kumar Mandal, S/o Suresh Mandal residing of Bagha near Satsung Mandir, P.S. – Phaka, District – Katihar at present residing at Rajendra nagar, Road No. 2, P.S. kadamkuan, Patna – 16, who is driver of Vikram Tempo no BR – 1AB – 9488. The tempo was plied by driver from Patna to Hajipur. On 23.11.2006 the said tempo was snatched by some miscreants. The information regarding theft was given by the driver of the vehicle. An F.I.R. was lodged by the driver under Vidyapati Nagar P.S. case No. 114/2006 dated 25.11.2006 U/s 379/34 IPC. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
2. After investigation the D.S.P. Dal Singh Sarai found the case of theft of the vehicle was false. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
3. The information regarding theft of the tempo bearing no  BR – 1AB 9488 was given by the driver to owner. On information the owner – complainant went to the spot verification and found some contradiction in the statement of driver and accordingly a complaint case no. 3482 (C)/07 has been filed by the owner – complainant before Chief Judicial Magistrate Hajipur Vaishali regarding loss of the Vikram tempo against the driver namely Vinay Kumar Mandal. After solemn affirmation and examination of  witness the Ld. Court took cognizance U/s 420 IPC. ( Vide Annexure – 3 and 4 )
4. The Vikram Tempo bearing no.  BR – 1AB 9488 was insured with Oriental Insurance company. The complainant gave information regarding theft of the said vehicle to this opposite party on 28.11.2006 which was received by this opposite party on 08.12.2006. ( Vide Annexure – 5 and 6 )
5. The complainant gave all required documents to this opposite party for settling the claim but the opposite party could not settle the claim of the complainant.
6. The complainant made hectic effort to settle the claim and requested time and again to this opposite party and accordingly deputed surveyor to assess the loss but nothing material/substantial was done to the complainant being perturbed and mentally distressed the complainant again wrote letter on 25.08.2008 to the Divisional manager ( D.O. III ) but nothing positive has been done by the opposite party to settle the claim. ( Vide Annexure – 7 )
7. The cause of action initially arose on 25.08.2008 when the claim neither settle nor repudiated by the opposite party as such the complaint is with limitation as provided under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. This learned forum has monetary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this complaint.
9. The complainant has not approached to any court of law and has come for the first time for Redressal of his grievances.
10. The complainant is consumer under Section 2 (i) (d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. inview of the fact that the complainant has hired Insurance Services as defined U/s 2(i)(o) of the C.P. Act and therefore deserves right under insurance contract to be indemnified with regard to the loss sustain to the vehicle under the terms and condition of the policy the complainant being left with no alternative has moved to the Ld. Forum for relief.

3. The Opposite Party in its written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. The very out set it is stated that the present complaint as filed by the complainant is not sustainable for the reason that the Police has found the occurrence of theft false and fabricated and accordingly submitted the final forum with a finding the occurrence being false and fabricated.
2. It is further submitted that the Police after getting intimation about the occurrence from the complainant started investigation in the case and found that the incident of snatching of vehicle is absolutely a concocted story and accordingly submitted the diary before the DSP Dalsingh Sarai who vide his report dated 26.10.2007 memo no. 1901 also found the occurrence false and fabricated. The DSP Dalsingh Sarai has very minutely observed the investigation done by the police and came to the conclusion that it is a false case and a concocted story of snatching of vehicle just to take benefit of Insurance Policy.
3. The brief fact of the case as per the complaint case is that the complaint is the owner of one Vikram Tempo bearing no. BR – 1AB – 9488. The tempo was plied by the driver from Patna to Hajipur Road. On 23.11.2006 the said Tempo snatched by some miscreants and the FIR lodged by the Police U/s 379/34 IPC.
4. The complaint informed the Insurance Company on 08.12.2006 i.e. after 15 days from the date of accident.
5. The Police after getting information started investigation in the case and come to the conclusion that the incident is false and fabricated and accordingly submitted the final forum as occurrence false.
6. The Insurance Company after getting information demanded documents to proceed with the claim, but with no result.
7. The Insurance Company also deputed the investigator Syed Akhtar Hasnain to verify the case and who vide his report dated 24.03.2008 has come to the conclusion that the claim of the complaint is false and fabricated just to take benefit of Insurance policy and to grab the Public money and hence the claim is not payable. ( Vide Annexure – 1 of written statement )
8. The complainant by lodging this frivolous claim has tried to grab the Public money therefore he is liable to be prosecuted.
9. There is no deficiency on the part of this opposite party as no documents were ever supplied by the complainant not he was co – operating with Insurance Company because he had all the knowledge that his claim is frivolous one and the Police has also given the finding that the occurrence of snatching of the vehicle is false.

We have gone through documents made available by the parties and have also heard them.

The only issue on which the case can be decided is about theft of vehicle in question which is the Crux of the case. The police after investigation have come to the conclusion that the occurrence of theft is false and fabricated and accordingly final form was submitted.

In Para -6 of written statement the opposite party Insurance Company has stated that the complainant has also not provided required documents to the Insurance Company which was called for from him for settling the claim.

However from the report of the surveyor Syed Akhtar Hasnain ( Vide Annexure – 1 of written statement ) it appears that complainant has not submitted required paper before him despite several letters. From the surveyor report it is not clear by what mode the letters were sent to the complainant. It may be possible that the aforesaid letters might not have been received by him because complainant has asserted in Para – 6 of the complaint petition that despite submission of all required papers with opposite party his claim has not been settled by him. There is no evidence that the vehicle in question has been recovered after theft. There is no evidence that the driver was in collusion with this complaint.

In view of the aforesaid fact, we think it proper that complainant must be heard by opposite parties after submission of relevant papers.

For the discussion made above, we direct the complainant to submit all the relevant papers with opposite party Insurance Company within two months of the date of receipt of this order. If the complainant deposits all relevant documents as required by opposite party Insurance company, then the opposite party Oriental Insurance Company authorities will decide the claim of the complainant in accordance with law within three months from the submission of all documents as stated above failing which the opposite parties will have to pay Rs. 100/- ( Rs. one hundred only ) to the complainant per day for the delay in deciding the matter in accordance with law.

This complaint case is disposed of in view of aforesaid direction.

                                                  Member(F)                                                        President