JUDGMENT

The instant case was instituted by one Kamal Sarkar S/o. Surendranath Sarkar, Vill. & P.O. Dumdighi, PS Malda, Dist. Malda (W.B.) u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the basis of a petition and the said petition was registered before this Forum as complaint Case No. 104/2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant purchased one insurance policy from the National Insurance Company having Policy No. 150700/31/16/6200003673 which was valid from 05/08/2016 to 04/08/2017. In the policy the IDB of the vehicle was assessed as Rs. 52,000/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Only) at the time of issuing Insurance Policy. On 12/04/2017 the motor cycle of the complainant bearing No. WB66U0773 was stolen in locked condition. The complainant informed the matter to the police station but the police on the plea of investigation did not put any seal and date over the written complaint and after a lapse of few days the police registered the FIR. The complainant also submitted relevant documents to the Insurance Company and also intimated about the theft of the vehicle after the incident. But ultimately the claim of the respondent was repudiated on 03/11/2017 as such the complainant has come to this Forum to get his relief.

The petition is contested by National Insurance Company i.e. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a written version denying all the material allegation as levelled against the Insurance Company contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. There is no cause of action to file the case.

The definite defense case is that the vehicle was found missing in front of the house of the complainant on 12/04/2017 and the F.I.R. was lodged after lapse of five days and the complainant also did not inform the Insurance Company just after the occurrence.

The further defense case is that another occurrence of theft was occurred one and half months ago prior to the present incident of theft. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to dismissed with cost.

In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined in the form of questionnaires and the complainant filed the documents at the time of trial and also at the time of filing of this case.

On the other hand the O.Ps did not adduce any evidence to its defense.

Now the points for determination: Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that the incident took place on 12/04/2017 whereas the intimation to the Police Station was lodged on 17/04/2017. There was five days delay. No explanation has been mentioned in the petition of complaint or in the F.I.R. why there was delay of five days in lodging F.I.R. for five days. No document is coming before this Forum now Commission that the complainant informed the Insurance Company after the occurrence.

According to the terms and condition of the policy that the insured will inform the Insurance Company immediately after the theft of the vehicle and such non-information immediately raises strong suspicion as to the genuineness of the case.

In this case it is to be mentioned that from the F.I.R. it is found that the vehicle was stolen near his house. From the petition of complaint it is found that his residence is at village Dumadighi under the Police Station of Malda. It is not understood why the FIR was lodged at English Bazar Police Station.

On perusal of the record it is found that on 07/03/2017 one key was missing and the matter was informed to the Malda P.S. on 07/03/2017 but such fact was not intimated to the Insurance Company. It is one of the latches on the part of the complainant that he should change the key when one key has lost. It is not understood why he informed the Malda P.S. But at that time he searched about the missing of key but he lodged F.I.R. for stolen of the vehicle at English Bazar Police Station. Though from the F.I.R. it is found that his vehicle was stolen in front of his house. It also raises suspicion as to the genuineness of the claim of the complainant. So considering such facts and circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

C.F. paid is correct

Hence, ordered that

the instant case be and same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost free of cost on proper application.