The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Ayesuddin Ahemed of Village Kismattola, under the P.S. Kaliachak Dist. Malda, under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 which was registered before this Forum as complaint Case No. 22 of 2017.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle and the said vehicle was duly registered with the registered authority at Malda bearing Vehicle No. WB66J 1568. The complainant also insured the vehicle with the O.P. vide Policy No. 68261662 and the period of insurance was from 27/11/2016 to 26/11/2017. On 01/01/2017 one Kasem Sk. who happens to be the relative of the complainant went to his relative house situated at Bagbari with that vehicle and the said vehicle was kept outside of the house of the relative and when he came out from the house of the relative he did not find the said vehicle on that date where the vehicle was kept. Thereafter the complainant searched here and there but failed to locate the said vehicle. As the complainant was suffering from sickness this is why he lodged a written complaint on 06/01/2017 before the English Bazar Police Station. But on 07/01/2017 the E.B.P.S. registered a police case bearing E.B.P.S. Case No. 23 of 2017 dt.07/01/2017 u/s. 379 IPC. The complaint lodged a claim for theft of the vehicle. But the Insurance Company expressed the inability to admit the claim and the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company for which the complainant has come to the Forum to redress his grievance.
The O.P. Insurance Company IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a written version denying all the material allegation as leveled against the Insurance Company contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form.
The definite defense case is that as per terms and condition of the policy the complainant should have informed the Police Station as well as to the Insurance Company immediately after the occurrence but the complainant informed the Police Station on 07/01/2017 though the incident took place on 01/01/2017 and he informed the Insurance Company on 29/01/2017 i.e. after the lapse of 28 days from the date of occurrence but it is a gross violation of the policy. So the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In order to prove the case one Ayesuddin Ahemed was himself examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined in the form of questioners. One another witness Kasim Sk. was examined as PW-2 and cross-examined on dock . On behalf of the O.P. no witness was examined. During trial the complainant also filed the documents.
Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for ?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
From the petition of complaint as well as evidence it is found that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question i.e. motorcycle and he happens to be the owner but from the evidence it is found that on the date of incident one Kasim Sk. who happens to be the relative of complainant took the vehicle to the house of his relative at Bagbari under the Police Station English Bazar but the said vehicle was stolen from Bagbari. It is the settled principle of law that when the registered owner of a vehicle is not driving the vehicle personally he must authorize any person to drive the vehicle but nowhere in the evidence or petition of complaint it is found that Kasim SK. was authorized by the complainant to drive the vehicle. So it is a gross violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Next point is to be considered in the policy whether the complainant informed the Insurance Company and the Local Police Station immediately after the occurrence. But on perusal of the evidence it is found that he informed the Insurance Company after the lapse of 28 days from the date of occurrence. Moreover, he informed the Police Station after the lapse of six days. As he was suffering from illness, no document as regards to the illness has been filed. Moreover, there is no explanation why there were 28 days delay to inform the Insurance Company. So it is a gross violation of the terms and condition of the policy. Moreover, on perusal of the record it is found that no amount was paid for theft of the vehicle.
So considering the facts and circumstances the complainant has failed to prove the case as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered that
the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost on proper application.
