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 the sum assured of Rs.8,97,190/- with interest and for compensation of Rs.45,000/- for unnecessary harassment and also Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.

The case of the complainant in short is that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle Maruti Suzuki being No.WB-60H/9444 and purchased the policy vide No.88268105 covering the period 25.01.2013 to 24.01.2014. On 25.06.2013 the car was driven by the driver from Raiganj to Dalkhola at about 17:30 hrs. was restrained at Dalkhola Bazar by some persons stating serious illness of a patient requesting to give a lift. On humanitarian ground believing those persons, the driver on good faith carried them in the vehicle. Suddenly in a lonely place the accused with threat of murder at gun point, forcibly pushed the driver out of vehicle and fled away with the vehicle. Driver then informed the incident to the complainant and he started search at all reasonable place, but failed to traced out. The Insurance Company was also informed. The matter was reported in writing to the local PS. But police did not give any receipt and did not take any action only gave assurance. After one month he again went to the PS, but with no result. Then he filed a complaint case before Ld. ACJM, Islampur, over which Karandighi PS Case No.619/2013, dated 07.01.2013 U/s 392/34 IPC was started and police submitted final report. After getting all documents from the Ld. Court, complainant then submitted claim Form before the O.P./ Insurance Company. He also made several reminders, then O.P. on 24.11.2014 issued letter stating the fact that since there was a considerable delay in lodging FIR and delay in intimating the claim the company regretted to inform that the claim is not admissible as per terms and conditions of the policy and treat the same as lost of opportunity. Complainant alleges that the incident took place within the time of the period of insurance but O.P. whimsically repudiated the claim creating a stalemate story. Therefore the complainant filed this case before this Forum to realize his legitimate claim and also compensation for mental pain and agony due to negligence and service of the O.P./ Company.

O.P. appeared and contested the case by filing written version, where he categorically denied the allegations of the complainant. That, O.P. clearly intimated in writing on 24.11.2014 the reason of repudiation of the claim. That, the claim is frivolous, vexatious and baseless. That complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the O.P. and the present claim is not at all admissible as per terms & conditions of the policy and O.P. prays for dismissal of this case.

To establish the case, the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him as P.W.1. Complainant files documents photocopy of the FIR, Final Report, copy of letter to RTO, dated 10.09.2013, copy of vehicle particulars and the letter of Insurance Company dated 24.11.2014.

O.P. cross examined the complainant as PW-1, but did not adduced any evidence. O.P. submitted documents like photocopy of Voter ID Card of complainant, copy of Form No.26, 28, 29, 30; Copy of letter dated 24.11.2014; Xerox copy of FIR, vehicle particulars and certificate of insurance premium schedule.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

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: -

Petitioner stated in the complaint petition and also deposed as P.W.-1 that he purchased the policy No.88268105 for the period 25.01.2013 to 24.01.2014 for the said vehicle No.WB-60H/9444. The policy copy filed by the parties goes to show this fact.

The said vehicle as per version of the complainant on 25.06.2013 on its way from Raiganj to Dalkhola was snatched by some miscreants forcibly showing Pistol to the driver. The said vehicle could not be traced by the police or by the complainant. The FIR was lodged on 07.08.2013 i.e. after 42 days of the occurrence. Complainant alleges that he verbally informed the incident to the police after the occurrence soon, but there is nothing in evidence to prove this fact. On the other hand it appears that following complaint petition before Ld. ACJM, Islampur, Karandighi PS case No.,619/2013, dated 07.08.2013 U/s 392/34 IPC was started. Police filed Final Report stating the fact that police took positive efforts to collect the name of miscreants who snatched the vehicle as well as to recover the vehicle but without any result, as there has been a long gap of laps period to inform the matter of theft to the police.  From the policy paper it also appears that the insured was to use the vehicle for his personal purpose and not for hire and reward. But the driver at the relevant time allowed outsiders to board the vehicle violating the terms and conditions of the policy. Ld. Lawyer for O.P. also filed decision 2005 (3) CHN, New India Assurance Company versus Naba Kumar Mandal that “……...If policy condition is violated using the car for hire & reward, Insurance Company shall not be liable for such loss and theft of vehicle”.

The policy in question does not specifically covered for the theft of the vehicle and no premium money is paid for such coverage. The incident took place on 25.06.2013 and the RTO was informed on 10.09.2013. The transfer of ownership of the vehicle was after 10 months of the incident of theft. From the evidence of the P.W.-1 and documents filed we find that a delay of 53 days to inform the Insurance Company about the theft is a serious lacuna on the part of the complainant while it is as per specific terms and conditions of the policy. The incident of theft should be communicated ‘immediately’ to the Police and to the Insurance Company. We can refer here the decision of Hon’ble National Commission as reported in 2014 CPR, Page-328 that “……Iinsured is duty bound to inform theft immediately after the incident”. Hon’ble National Commission also discussed the point elaborately in Revision Petition No. 2444/2013, dated 28.04.2013 Kamaljit Kaur versus United India Insurance Company Limited.

Ultimately the complainant filed the complaint case before Ld. ACJM and Police started case on 07.08.2013 long after the incident, so that, there was possibility of recovery of the vehicle if the incident of theft is immediately reported to the Police. Complainant failed to explain why such lacuna in informing the Police as well as the Insurance Company in time. Therefore we find there is a gross negligence on the part of the insured and a violation of statutory provision of law and also of mandatory provision. Therefore the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim by intimating the repudiation showing grounds and reason on 24.11.2014, we therefore find no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from O.P./ Insurance Company in the light of our above discussion.

Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC-44/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.