This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for direction upon O.P./ Insurance Company to pay of Rs.48,037/- as insurance claim for theft of vehicle and for compensation of Rs.15,000/- for unnecessary harassment and also Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is the owner of vehicle Hero Honda Super Splendor being registered No.BR37D/5927 and insured the vehicle at `Rs.48.037/- being policy No.3005/15949478/11115/000 valid from 10.04.12 to 09.04.13. On 14.04.12 he parked the Motor Cycle near Islampur Sadar Hospital and entered into the hospital. After some times when he returned from the hospital he found that two unknown miscreants trying to flee away with his motor cycle. He raised alarm and chased them. Local people rushed to the P.O and were able to apprehend one of the miscreants namely Raju Das while the other miscreant managed to flee away with the bike. Complainant lodged complaint at Islampur P.S on 15.04.12 and immediately informed the O.P/Ins. Co. After laps of few months he contacted O.P in writing to get the sum assured but O.P did not response. Then he sent legal notice on 06.06.15 to the office of O.P but with no result. Therefore, petitioner filed this case before this Forum with the above mentioned prayer.

O.Ps appeared and contested the case by filing written version, where they categorically denied the allegations of the complainant. O.P. made a very elaborate written statement assailing the complaint. O.P admits that the purchase of the policy but alleges that petitioner raised his claim after laps of long time and did not submit all the relevant documents as required under the policy like authorization letter, driving license etc. That, the claim was not covered under the policy. That, he did not inform the facts of theft of vehicle in due time. O.P claims that there was no such incident of theft and petitioner is not entitled to get any amount as compensation under the policy. The case is filed for wrongful gain violating the mandatory provisions of Insurance policy and therefore O.P prays for dismissal of the complaint petition along with cost.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and he filed documents like policy papers, registration form, information to DTO, Xerox copies of FIR, Charge sheet/ final report, information from O.P, driving license and legal notice etc. He deposed as per version of the complaint. In cross examination he deposed that he lodged complaint on the very next day at P.S and also informed the fact of theft to Insurance Co. and handed over all necessary documents to the Loss Assessor Surveyor. So, it is proved that the theft of the vehicle was admitted by the O.P and Loss Assessor surveyed the matter of theft. Practically in the written version O.P admitted the theft but repudiated the claim on the grounds of delayed information, violation of policy condition, non possession of valid D.L etc. O.P did not adduce any evidence by producing any witness in this case to prove all these allegations. During hearing of argument O.P submits by petition dt. 25.05.17 that they humbly pray before this Forum that Forum may pass necessary order for an award of compensation of Rs.40,000/-towards the claim of the petitioner under the policy. Petitioner filed the FIR, charge sheet/ final report in G.R.806/2012 to prove that the theft of the vehicle on 14.04.12 was duly informed to the Islampur P.S. and that one of the miscreants Raju Das was caught red handed. However, police failed to recover the vehicle. .

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

That the petitioner has been able to prove that he purchased the policy for the motor cycle. That the vehicle in question was stolen away on 14.04 12 and the matter was immediately informed to the P.S on 15.04.12. The O.P was also informed The surveyor/loss assessor, investigated the matter of theft following the claim of the compensation under the policy. Moreover, O.P/Ins. Co agreed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards the claim of Rs.48,307/-. If petitioner is allowed compensation of Rs.40,000/- it will meet the ends of justice.

After hearing argument of Ld. Lawyers of both sides and in the light of our above discussion we find that petitioner has been able to prove his case and he is entitled to get compensation accordingly.

Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 13/2016 be and the same succeeds on contest but in part.

The O.P/Insurance   Company is directed to pay the amount Rs.40,000/-, under the Policy against the compensation claim for theft of the vehicle (Hero Honda Motor Bike) No. BR37D/5927. We direct the O.P/Insurance Company to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 05.02.16.  Further, we direct the O.P. to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. Entire amount be paid within one month from this day, lest interest to be imposed at the rate of 9% per annum till full realization. Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.