This revision is directed against the order no. 2 dated 12/12/2019 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Malda in CC no. 27of 2019. The fact of the case in nutshell is that being owner of a motor bike the complainant has insured the said vehicle through National Insurance Company for the policy period between 10.2.2017 and 9.2.2018. On 29.12.2017 the vehicle was stolen away by some unknown miscreants. On that very day he rushed to Ratua P.S. to intimate the theft of vehicle and ultimately an FIR was registered by the concerned PS on 3.1.2018. he submitted the claim form before the Insurance Company with furnishing all necessary documents for reimbursement of the value of  the insured vehicle which was repudiated on 30.8.2018 on the ground of delay in registering FIR. Then the insured has registered the Consumer Complaint under section 12 of CP Act, 1986 against the National Insurance Company. The Ld. Forum after hearing has refused to admit the CC on the ground that theft of the vehicle was not informed to the insurer. So, this revision follows against the said refusal order on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from irregularity. The revision  was admitted on merit and notice of revision was served upon the NIC ltd. through post. But the revision was not  contested from their end. The Ld. Advocate conducts the hearing on behalf of revisionist.  

Decision with reasons

Having heard the Ld. Advocate Mr. J. Chowdhury appointed by the revisionist, it is reflected that the complainant went to P.S on 29.12.2017. that is on the very date of theft of the vehicle. But the concerned officer attached to the P.S  has delayed the registration of FIR till 3.1.2018. The complainant submitted the claim application to the NIC ltd. with intimating them about the theft by enclosing the copy of FIR. But the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the authority on the ground of delay FIR. The Ld. Forum has misconceived the fact that no theft intimation was sent to NIC ltd. whereas the repudiation letter dated 30.8.2018 itself speaks that theft was duly intimated. The repudiation was justified or not is a mix question of Law and fact which shall  have to be determined on its own merit in appropriate stage of hearing and this Commission does not find any cogent reason to  dismiss the instant Consumer Complaint on its admission stage.

Hence  it is, Ordered,

That the revision application is hereby allowed on merit without any cost. That the order no 2 of DCDRF, Malda dated 12.12.2019 in CC no 87 of 2019 stands set aside. The Consumer Complaint filed by the revisionist Rajib Sarkar before DCDRF, Malda bearing CC no. 87 of 2019 is hereby admitted on its own merit. The Ld. DCDRF, Malda is hereby requested to issue notice upon the Ops asking them to  contest the dispute by WV and to  dispose of the matter as per provisions of Consumer protection Act and rules.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties of this case and also to be communicated to the Ld. DCDRF, Malda.