Order No. 11 Dt. 13.01.2015
This complaint U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 has been filed by the petitioner Karabi Jha praying for direction on the O.Ps to pay the full amount of the vehicle amounting to Rs.50000/- and Registration Cost of Rs.4000/- along with the interest of Rs.12% p.a. from the date of refusal of the claim and also further prayed for compensation of Rs.20000/- for harassment and mental agony and cost.
The case of the petitioner in short - that the complainant purchased one two wheeler in cash from M/s. Narayani Auto Centre Pvt. Ltd. situated at Malda. The value of the said vehicle was Rs. 41704/- and also purchased some
accessories of the said vehicle of Rs.8296/- and also paid Rs. 3000/- for the registration. The vehicle was registered and the number was WB-66M/5830. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P. No.1. On 23.04.2013 in the evening time complainant’s husband placed the vehicle near the Malda College Auditorium and having a tea in a nearby teashop keeping the vehicle beside the shop and after returning he found the vehicle did not in the place he searched the surrounding and thereafter he searched and ultimately on 29.04.2013 he made a diary in the police station and thereafter, police started specific case u/s. 379 IPC on 21.06.2013 being the Case No. 551 of 2013 dt.21.06.2013.
Thereafter, the petitioner sent all the necessary papers to the O.P. as the said vehicle was insured and the insurance claim of the petitioner, however, was repudiated by the O.P. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed this case in this Forum. The O.P. refused to compensate the amount as he did not make complaint just after the incident and he is not entitled to get compensation and sent a letter by post to the petitioner so he filed this case in this Forum.
The summon was sent and O.P. appeared and filed written statement admitting the fact of insurance of the complainant’s two wheeler but as per the terms and conditions the intimation was not given to them and the delay of five days/ 59 days is the violation of the terms and condition so he is not entitled to get any relief.
On the basis of the same the following issues are framed:
- Is the D.F.C Case No. 37/2014 is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the O.Ps?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other reliefs is the petitioner entitled?
To prove their respective case parties file some documents which are marked Exts.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and the petitioner examined herself as P.W.-1. No D.W. adduced by the O.P.
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5
All the issues are taken up together for the convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration.
In support of her case the petitioner Karabi Jha deposed before the Forum as P.W.-1 and she corroborated the fact of this case stated in his written complaint and submitted that the complainant purchased one two wheeler in cash from M/s. Narayani Auto Centre Pvt. Ltd. situated at Malda. The value of the said vehicle was Rs. 41704/- and also purchased some
accessories of the said vehicle of Rs.8296/- and also paid Rs. 3000/- for the registration. The vehicle was registered and the number was WB-66M/5830. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P. No.1. On 23.04.2013 in the evening time complainant’s husband placed the vehicle near the Malda College Auditorium and having a tea in a nearby teashop keeping the vehicle beside the shop and after returning he found the vehicle did not in the place he searched the surrounding and thereafter he searched and ultimately on 29.04.2013 he made a diary in the police station and thereafter, police started specific case u/s. 379 IPC on 21.06.2013 being the Case No. 551 of 2013 dt.21.06.2013.
Thereafter, the petitioner sent all the necessary papers to the O.P. as the said vehicle was insured and the insurance claim of the petitioner, however, was repudiated by the O.P. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed this case in this Forum. The O.P. refused to compensate the amount as he did not make complaint just after the incident and he is not entitled to get compensation and sent a letter by post to the petitioner so he filed this case in this Forum.
This P.W. 1 was cross-examined by the other side. It is a fact that the said incident took place on 23.04.2013 and the vehicle was registered and insured with the O.P. No.1 and when the insure was valid the theft took place. It is also established in this case that the vehicle was not found in the place in the evening of 23.04.2013 and about 5 days’ after complaint was lodged in the English Bazar Police Station on 29.04.2013. Ld.advocate for the petitioner tried to draw our attention by citing a ruling reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1142 stating that the G.D. entry if content material information as to the commission of cognizable offence the said G.D. entry is to be treated as FIR. This ruling has no nexus in this case. It is not disputed regarding the theft but lodging of diary without giving any sufficient reason for filing written complaint about five days after the said incident.
This Forum heard the Ld.Counsels of both sides. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he lodged the complaint before the Police Station but he did not able to explain why he filed this case about 5 days’ after the incident. The petitioner is duty bound as per the agreement to inform the O.P. about the theft of the insured vehicle. He did not inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. The O.P. was deprived of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the said motor cycle and make an endeavour to recover the same. O.P. sent a letter to the petitioner i.e. Ext.-2 clearly speaks that he is not entitled to get any compensation. As per the decision of the CPJ Vol. IV of NCDRC at page 350, Kulwant Singh Vs. United India Insurance the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. and in this case the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation as claimed in this case so we come to a conclusion that the delay for making complaint before the police regarding theft the legitimate right of the Insurance Co. fatal.
In view of above all the issues are decided in favour of the O.P. Insurance Company as against the petitioner.
In the result, the consumer claim case fails.
Court fees, paid on the petition, is correct.
Hence, ordered
that the Consumer Case No. 37/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without cost.
Let a copy of the order be given to each of the parties free of cost.
