Content of the complaint petition is that complainant purchased a motor cycle bearing number WB- 66 Y/8938 and that was insured before the OP no 1 and 2 for own damage, lost and third party liability under policy no 39010231176200536858. He paid premium accordingly. That on 26.03.2018 in the evening the said vehicle was stolen in front of the house of the petitioner situated at Dr. B.C Road Manoshkamona Pally, Jhaljhaliya, Malda while it was locked. As soon as petitioner noticed that his parked motor cycle was not there he made an intense search everywhere but found nowhere. Immediately after the incident he conveyed the information to the OP insurance company as well as the inspector of English Bazar Police Station over telephone. Subsequently he registered complaint on 01.04.2018 under case no 296/2018 for theft of motor cycle. After investigation there was no recovery of the motor cycle. The premium was under the coverage at the time of incident of theft of motor cycle. So due to theft and non recovery of the motor cycle he submitted filled up claim application form to the OP no 2 along with all relevant documents for claim of compensation against the aforesaid  loss of vehicle. The petitioner had made a number of correspondence with the insurance company and submitted all relevant documents when insurance company took signature of complainant on some blank papers this complainant disclosed before the insurance company that the motor cycle was financed by the HDFC bank through dealer point as representative of the financer bank and bank has taken one ignition key as security of the loan and instructed the petitioner that financer bank will hand over the key as soon as the loan amount will be liquidated. The petitioner also submitted one ignition key to the insurance. But OP insurance company through letter dated 02.05.2019 said that duplicate key and plate of motor cycle ought to be deposited within 10 days at their office. This complainant requested the OP no 3 to deliver the ignition key to the insurance company but they did not do it. At first insurance company gave assurance of payment of compensation but subsequently they refused to give the insurance amount on demanding two ignition keys. Complainant gave a lawyer’s notice and hereafter approached before this commission for proper relief.

Insurance company filed the WV stating inter-alia that the insurance policy is not denied but no premium was conveyed for any event of theft or burglary. Moreover after seven days this complainant informed to PS but there was no delay of explanation. Insurance company was not also intimated after the incident it was nine day delay to inform about the alleged incident. Moreover this company repeatedly asked complainant to deposit two ignition keys but those were not deposited as per rules. Hence his prayer was repudiated. He is not entitled to get any relief.

OP no 3 financer did not respond to the litigation. Hence case fixed against him as exparte.

DECISION

In order to substantiate the claim complainant examined himself along with the letters dated 10.03.2019, 02.05.2019, 13.5.2019, 16.5.2019, 03.5.2019, F.I.R, F.R.T etc.

But Ops did not adduce any evidence but filed manual of Motor OD and WNA.

This commission perused the evidence and all the documents filed by the parties. Admittedly no policy papers/ contract papers in between the insurer and insured was filed as well as any receipt of payment was not produced before this commission to be acquainted about contract of insurance between the parties. So this commission is in dark whether any theft or burglary was included in the policy or not or covered by.  Accordingly non submission of policy paper or contract, an adverse inference is being drawn by this commission behind the coverage of theft under the policy.

Secondly from the manual as produced by the insurance company it is noticed ignition keys must be deposited by the claimant along with application of  claim amount but that has not been done by the claimant in respect of any theft.

Thirdly claimant is totally silent whether any loan against the motor cycle was satisfied or not for which no such occurrence took place as such repossess of vehicle by the financer for satisfaction of loan instead of any alleged theft.

Accordingly these three points restricts this commission to stretch the hand of affirmative adjudication towards complainant.

Hence order

That the complaint petition is dismissed without cost.

Let a copy of judgment/final order be supplied to the parties free of cost.