The appeal is directed against the final order dated 16.01.2019 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda in CC No. 43 of 2016. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the appellant B. Majhi purchased a Hero Motor Cycle on 06.10.2013 which was duly insured with respondent Company IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. During the Insurance period the vehicle was stolen away at Ratua, Malda on 12.10.2015. He immediately rushed to the Ratua Police Station for registering a FIR but the Police Authority did not receive the written FIR from him on that day. Subsequently, the duty officer of Ratua. P.S. recorded the FIR on 05.11.2015 and registered Ratua, P.S. case No. 357 of 2015 dated 05.11.2015. He intimated the instant theft to the Insurance Company and submitted the claim for reimbursement of the value of the stolen motor bike which was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 03.05.2016. He approached before the Ld. Forum for getting compensation and reimbursement. The Insurance Company after receiving notice of Consumer Complaint has contested the case by filing Written Version and contended that a long delay of FIR and intimation, he has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and for that reason the repudiation on its part was justified one. Ld. Forum after recording evidence and hearing the arguments has delivered the impugned order and came to a conclusion that Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim and the Consumer Complaint was dismissed on merit. Being aggrieved with that order this appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from irregularity, mistakes and misconception of facts. The appeal was registered in due course and notice was sent to the address of the respondent Insurance Company who has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate Mr. J.P. Pawa and during the course of hearing submitted the W.N.A. The memo of appeal was moved by the Ld. Advocate of the appellant Mr. J.N. Choudhury who also furnished the W.N.A.

Decision with reasons

After hearing the Ld. Advocate of both sides. It appears to us that as per official record the insured vehicle was stolen on 12.10.2015 and the FIR was registered on 05.11.2015 which is inserted in the pleading of the complainant. There was no whispering as to on which date the intimation of theft was communicated to the Insurance Company while in the repudiation letter, the Insurance Company has mentioned that the intimation of theft was received from the complainant on 26.11.2015. The Insurance Company during the course of evidence furnished the questionnaires and the complainant was asked in question No. 2 to justify cause of delay about the theft of Motor Cycle which informed to the Police Station after lapse of 24 days and also asked him to justify the delay in communicating the fact of theft to the Insurance Company. The said two questions were answered by the complainant in a evasive manner. He did not specifically mention about the cause of delay of lodging the FIR and intimation of theft to the Insurance Company. The answer to the two points raised by the Insurance Company was very vital to adjudicate this dispute and the answers given by him in this regard is not at all convincing and acceptable. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument mentioned that it is known in our prevailing system the Police Officials generally avoid to receive the FIR immediately and the victims in most of the cases has to suffer a lot before registering their grievances in the shape of FIR. Here in this particular case, the complainant immediately went to the Police Station to inform the incident by Written. But the officials posted in the Police Station did not accept the FIR from him and asked him to search in his personal level the stolen Motor Cycle and for that reason the FIR was registered after 24 days. The complainant has nothing to do in this regard as because Police Officials has frustrated him in recording the FIR. In support of his argument, he mentioned that Consumer Protection Act, is a beneficial legislation and mere delay of FIR or intimation to the Insurance Company should not be the reasonable grounds for repudiation of any claim of a bonafide policy customer. In support of, his argument he referred judicial decision in Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017 delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Om Prakash. Vs. General Insurance and Others. Ld. Advocate of the respondent categorically countered this argument that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the insurance policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender. He further asked that the object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the Police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act the police can be set in motion and take steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the Insurance Company or a Surveyor would have limited role. It is the Police who acting on the FIR of the insured will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Ld. Advocate of the respondent in support of his argument by cited various judicial decisions and all the judicial decisions referred by him based on the benefit of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Singh Case Vs Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. The case law cited by the  Complainant/appellant mentioned above particularly the Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017 where the Hon’ble Apex Court was in a considered view that delay of FIR was only for 8 days and the investigating wing of the Insurance Company after investigation came to a point with the vehicle was stolen away and it could not be traced out and for that reason the prayer of reimbursement of the value of the vehicle was upheld by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But here in this particular case there is no explanation as to the delay of FIR of 24 days and delay of intimation to the Insurance Company of 45 days. And for that reason, Ld. Forum was constrained to hold that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the damage or reimbursement amount of stolen vehicle in this particular case and for that reason the Consumer Case was dismissed. And after hearing both sides and after consulting all the judicial decisions of the Ld. Hon’ble Higher Forum, the constructive views of this Commission are that the appellant could not substantiate to uphold his claim and for that reason the appeal has got no merit at all.

Hence, it is ordered

 That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. Forum through email.