S. S. Ali, Member

The complainant was the owner of the motorcycle bearing number 30L/0715. That on 28^th December 2012 when the complainant went to attend the resident of a patient at Sripati Nagar under Chandipur Police station the said motorcycle was stolen.

          The complainant lodged a case at Chandipur police station on 15/01/2013 under section 379 of IPC being Chandipur police station case no 12 of 2013. The complainant due to mental agony was late to inform the local police station. With regard to the said theft, the investigating officer examined persons and took their statement under section 161 of the CrPC.

          By a letter dated 31th January 2013 the petitioner sent for claim to the opposite party number 2. On receiving the letter the OP No.2 issued claim registration number MOT02924637 dt. 01/02/2013 there after the office of the opposite party’s appointed one Mr. Arup for enquiry about the matter. The opposite party No.2 by a letter dated 12 march 2013 being reference number MOT/TT/FEB/2013 refused  the claim of the complainant and advised the complainant to approach the nearest  Insurance Ombudsman Office at North British Building at 29 N.S. Road 3^rd floor Kolkata 1,

Hence the complainant file this case before this forum.

The opt. party’s filed their W/V and also their W/N/A. The OPs did not admit that on 28/12/2012, the complainant motor cycle was stolen. They also state the payer of the complainant is improper illegal and unjust. The OP further states that the complainant lodged intimidation regarding theft at chandipur PS on 15/01/2013 after a delay of 15 days and informed the Opt party’s after a lapse of 34 days without any explanation of such delay. According to Policy terms and condition the intimation of theft should be made immediately after the occurrence and should also sent notice to the op party’s within 24 hours or else valuable time will be lost to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The OP also states that from the FIR report it was found that the complainant did not take any reasonable care and protection of the vehicle but he parked his vehicle in an open public place carelessly.

We heard the arguments of both the party’s, it is facts there was theft of the vehicle and/or loss of the same in undisputed.

It is absurd that the complainant did not approach local police station soon after the vehicle was stolen nor he explained why he was 15 days late in lodging a diary neither he explained the reason for such delay. The complainant in his complaint petition stated that due to mental agony was unable to inform the police or the opt. party’s but he did not file any medical paper to show that he was unable to leave his house or he was sick and was bed ridden for which could not inform the incident of theft either to the local police station or the Insurance Company. That being so we accept the argument put forward by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the op. party’s that notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require by the complainant as such the complainant is not liable to any compensation because there has been violation of terms of Agreement on his part, in as much as the faction of theft was conveyed to OP Insurance Co. almost after 34 days whereas theft took plaice on 28/12/2012 and the complainant informed the op. party’s on 30^th January 2013 as such the op. party’s rightly reputed the claim by their letter dated March 12^th  2013.

Hence it is:-

Ordered

that the complaint case being no. 61 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed against the opposite parties without any cost.