The instant case was started on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Md. Humayaun Reza of village Loyaitala under the P.S. Kaliachak, District Malda before this Consumer Forum, Malda u/s.  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 21 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 one Hero Moto Corp Glamour of 125 cc. from Hero Motor Corporation and after purchase the vehicle was registered before Registering Authority of Malda i.e.  RTO Malda and the vehicle was registered as Vehicle No. WB66- K 6651. After purchase the complainant insured the vehicle with O.P. vide Policy No. 68439649 and the period of insurance was from 08/12/2016 to 07/12/2017 on payment of premium fees.

On 17/01/2017 the complainant went to his brother in law’s house on 02-30 P.M. keeping the vehicle outside beside the road in front of the gate of the house of his relative and coming out from that house the complainant not found the vehicle where he kept the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant became perplexed and searched hear and there but all his attempts to find out the vehicle was in vain. But due to his illness, due to heart problem as of earlier and thereafter compelled to take rest as per the advice of doctor for coronary angioplasty. After recovery from his illness on 22/01/2017 the complainant lodged a complaint before the E.B.P.S. but on 23/01/2017 the E.B.P.S. registered a police case u/s. 379 IPC bearing EBPS Case No. 70 /2017 dt. 23/01/2017. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the O.P. informed the fact and lodged the claim. But ultimately the claim was repudiated. In this regard, the O.P. gave a letter dt.11/03/2017 to the complainant about the repudiation of the claim. As the claim has been repudiated this is why the complainant has come to the Forum to redress his grievance on the ground that there was deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps as such the complainant has prayed for Rs.29,000/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Only) for cost of theft vehicle and other reliefs.

The petition has been contested by filing a written version    of the O.P. IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form and it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the O.P. for a period from 08/12/2016 to 07/12/2017 on certain term and condition. The further defense case is that the vehicle in question was stolen on 17/01/2017 and the FIR was lodged on 23/01/2017. There was near about seven days of the theft of vehicle which was intimated to the office of the O.P. Insurance Co. on 24/01/2017. For the gap of 8 days from the date of theft of the vehicle in question which is in gross violation of the policy condition.  As such the O.P. is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. 

The complainant himself was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined in the form of questionnaires. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand no witness was examined on behalf of the O.P. 

Now the point for determination.

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Case law referred by the complainant Civil Appeal No. 15611  of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 742 of 2015)

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that the incident of theft of the vehicle in question took place on 17/01/2017 whereas the complaint was lodged on 22/01/2017 before the Police Station and the FIR was drawn up on 23/01/2017. So there was a delay of eight days. According to the argument as advance by the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. is that there was a gross violation of the terms and condition of the policy. Moreover, the complainant informed the Insurance Company on 24/01/2017. So the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation due to violation of the terms and condition of the policy. In this regard the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that the cause of delay of lodging complaint has been mentioned in the Para -5 of the petition of complaint as the complainant was sick due to heart problem as earlier and thereafter he took rest as per advice of the physician for coronary angioplasty. This is why there was delay. It may be the fact that there may be a delay of lodging complaint if the complainant becomes ill. But not a piece of document has been filed by the complainant to show that he was confined to bed for his sickness as stated. So it is quite impossible on the part of this Forum to believe the fact that the delay was caused for the sickness of the complainant.

Moreover, it is to be mentioned that the incident took place within the jurisdiction of E.B.P.S. and the distance of the place where the theft of vehicle took place will be 4 K.M.  from the P.S. as appears from the copy of FIR (First Information Report)

On perusal of the Examination-in-Chief it is found that the complainant is a School Teacher so he had the knowledge about the terms and condition of the policy. Moreover, he should have informed the Insurance Company just after the date of occurrence by writing any letter which may be posted by speed post or by any courier or otherwise but nothing was done. In this the Ld.Lawyer of he complainant refers the case law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. No. 15611  of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 742 of 2015) ( Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and other ). By that case law the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant wants to impress upon that in the reported case there was eight days delay in lodging complaint. So the fact of this reported case is quite similar to the instant case. So the prayer of the complainant may be allowed. After carefully reading of the judgment of the Honble Suprme Court the Supreme Court held that the appellant in the reported case has assigned the cogent reasons for delay of the eight days in lodging the complaint but for the instant case the complainant has not assign or prove any cogent reason for delay of eight days. So the reported case law has no similarity with the instant case as the complainant has hopelessly failed to prove the fact of assigning any cogent reason for delay of eight days. On perusal of the reported case law in Para-9 it is found that the appellant is an owner of the truck in question was the resident of District Hissar state of Hariana where theft of the vehicle took place on 23/03/2010at Rajasthan. The FIR was lodged on 24/03/2010 at P.S. Tapkura Dist. Alwar and the claim petition was filed on 31/03/2010. So there was a long distance between the District Hissar and the Rajasthan Bhiwari. But for the instant case it is found that the incident took place within 4 k.m. from the E.B.P.S. though the complainant is a resident of Village: Loyaitola under the P.S. Kaliachak it will be near about 30 k.ms. So the reported case law has no relevancy for the instant case. Every case has to be decided in its own facts and circumstances. The Ld.Lawyer further submits that in the reported case it has been mentioned that it is a beneficial legislation for the consumer that deserves liberal construction. It is a fact that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted for giving the help to the consumer who was actually effected but the aims and object of the Act was not to lodge a false claim to defeat the spirit of the Act. So on considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed without any cost.

C.F. Paid is correct.

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 parties free of cost on proper application.