FINAL ORDER

Sri Rituraj Dey, Member

The present consumer case has been filed by the complainant against OPs praying for insurance claim of amount of Rs. 40,000/-, Compensation of amount of Rs.10,000/- and legal expenses of amount of ₹ 10,000/-.

            The complainant’s case, in a nutshell is that the complainant took an insurance package policy from OP for his motor cycle – Hero Glamour being no. WB-32D/0674. The said motor cycle was stolen on 08/05/2014 at about 3:15 P.M.  The incident happened when the complainant kept the motor cycle near central bus stand at Contai and went  near a tea-stall. The complainant lodged an FIR before Contai P.S. being case no. 180/14 dt. 22/05/2014 and informed the OP on 10/06/2014 about the fact. According to the complainant the police have started investigation but the motor cycle is not recovered still now. In accordance with the complainant the OP repudiated the insurance claim due to delay of 14 days in lodging FIR at Police Station and delay of 21 days in informing to the OP. Hence, the present case has been filed by the complainant.

            The OPs have appeared in the present case by filing W/V as also W/N/A wherein they have admitted about the said insurance package policy against the said motor cycle as stated by the complainant in his petition. The OPs have made a doubt on the procedure of theft as the complainant has stated. The OPs have also stated that according to the policy’s terms and condition the FIR at police station and intimation to insurance company are to be done immediately after theft of vehicle but the complainant lodged FIR after 14 days and intimated to the OP insurance company after 21 days of said theft case. According to the OPs, the immediate FIR and intimation to insurance company are necessary for tracing the vehicle easily, which had been theft.

            The OPs have cited the Judgments of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, such as, Smt. Gyarsi Devi v/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Revision Petition No. 1362 of 2011),Ramprasad v/s Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Co. Ltd (Revision petition No. 1964 of 2013), Virender  Kumar VS The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (Revision petition No. 2534 of 2012). Sh. Suresh Kumar VS National Insurance Company Ltd & others (Revision petition No. 2894 of 2011) to establish the fact that the delay in lodging FIR and in informing to insurance co. is not correct and justified.

Points for Consideration

1. Is there any deficiency in service  on the part of the OPs?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation or relief?

Decisions with reason

Points No. 1 & 2

      Having gone through the fact and perused the entire documents on record, it appears that there is a relation of consumer and service provider in between the complainant and the OPs in respect of the insurance policy being no.3005/22654187/10229/000 which was issued to the complainant by the OP/OPs for the said motor cycle owned by the complainant. From the copy of FIR being case No. 601/14 and FIR No. 180 dt. 22/05/2014 and the letter of the OPs written to the complainant on 22/08/14, we come to know that the complainant lodged an FIR after 14 days of the said theft and intimated to the OPs about the fact after 21 days of the theft of the said motor cycle. The complainant has not clarified the reason for such delaying to lodge FIR and to inform the OP/OPs.

      We think that it is true that immediate information about theft of vehicle to the Local Police Station and to the Insurance Company is necessary for tracing the stolen vehicle quickly and for making a proper investigation to recover the said vehicle. In the present case the complainant did not follow the aforesaid method after theft of the said motor cycle and violated the terms and condition of Insurance Company regarding theft case of any vehicle.

      We have carefully read the Judgments of Hon’ble NCDRC as stated before and it appears to us from the said judgments that the matter of delaying in lodging FIR to local police station and informing to concerned insurance company by complainant  in case of theft of vehicle is not justified and correct. Here, in the present case, we see that the complainant made delay to lodge FIR at police station and to inform/intimate the insurance company(OPs) about the theft of said motor cycle. The OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant sending a letter dt. 22/08/2014 to the complainant, wherein the OPs have mentioned about the said delay and violation of terms and condition by the complainant. The OPs have repudiated the said insurance claim following the terms and condition of the said insurance policy. Hence, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As the complainant has not followed the correct and justified procedure of making FIR to police station and intimation to the  insurance company(OP) immediately after theft of the said vehicle which has been insured by the OPs, so, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or relief as sought for. That being so, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.   

      Both these points, are, thus disposed of accordingly.

      Hence, it is,

Ordered

      that the instant Consumer Case No. 92/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.  Parties do bear their respective cost.