This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 01.02.2021 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda in connection with CC No 104 of 2017. The fact of the case in nut shell is that the one Mr. Kamal Sarkar an inhabitant of Malda, Police Station Malda registered a Consumer Complaint to the effect that his Motor Bike having covered with first party insurance was stolen away which was kept in front of his house at Malda. He, recorded the theft Motor Bike incident by FIR and raised claim for compensation for the value of the stolen Motor Bike from the Insurance Company which was ultimately repudiated on the part of the Insurance Company and for that reason this case was initiated. The Insurance Company has contested the case by filing W.V and contended that the FIR was registered after five days of incident and due to delay of FIR and delay intimation to the Insurance Company about the incident, the Insurance Company has the right cause to repudiate the claim. Ld. Forum after recording evidences and hearing the parties to the case came into a conclusion that there was no valid explanation on the part of the Complainant as to why the delay was there on his part and due to his own latches, the Insurance Company was not bound to entertain the claim. Being aggrieved with this order the appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. forum suffers from mistakes, errors etc. The appeal was registered in due time and notice was sent to the Insurance Company that is National Insurance Company and its Branch Manager. The National Insurance Company has contested the case through Ld. Advocate Mr. B. Maitra. Hearing of the case on behalf of the Complainant/Appellant was conducted through Ld. Advocate Mr. J. Chowdhury. The appeal was heard on its merit in presence of both sides.

Decision with reasons

The Insurance Company in their Written Version filed before the Ld. Forum mentioned that the alleged incident took place on 12.04.2017 at about 8 PM while the FIR for the said theft took place after five days that is on 17.04.2017 and while there was five days gap for registering the FIR that was not well explained by the Complainant. The further case of the respondent side is that it was significant to mention the nexus of such occurrence of theft was also noted by another occurrence which was happened one and a half months prior to this incident of theft. The further claim contention raised by the O.P is that during the course of investigation through investigator the National Insurance Company consulted with National Crime Record Burau and found that till 29.05.2017 this alleged theft was not recorded to the National Crime Record Burau, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. In this case the Complainant filed a copy of FRT report which speaks that the Police investigated the case and could not trace out the stolen Motor Bike and for that reason they have closed the investigation by submitting the FRT before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. While, the Insurance Company claims that no such report of theft was there in the record of National Crime Record Burau about this incident till 29.05.2017. Now, the question is if the Police Authority fails to record the alleged theft before the National Crime Record Burau then certainly it was a mistake of Police and for that reason the Complainant had nothing to do. On the other hand, it was also fact that the Complainant resides at old Malda while the Motor Bike theft took place within the jurisdiction of English Bazar Police Station while the Complainant in FIR mentioned that his Motor Bike was theft away which was kept in front of his house. So, there is reasonable ground to suspect as to why the FIR was registered at English Bazar Police Station but the alleged incident took place within the P.S of old Malda. During the course of hearing Ld. Advocate of the appellant submits that the Complainant/Appellant is a permanent inhabitant within the jurisdiction of old Malda while he has other residence under English Bazar Police Station area. The Motor Bike was theft from that place and for that reason he registered the FIR before the English Bazar P.S. But it was not explained on the part of the appellant as to why five days gap was there in registering the FIR and there is no sufficient explanation in the FIR itself as to such delay. Ld. Advocate of the appellant mentioned that the incident was reported in due time but due to reluctancy of Police the FIR was registered after five days and Complainant had no authority upon the Police to compel them to register the FIR in due time. Ld. Advocate relies upon the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 15611 of 2017 where Hon’ble Apex Court has formed an opinion that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction and rejection of the claims of an insured on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner would result in loss of confidence of policy holder in the insurance industry. If, the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. Here in this referred case a Truck was stolen away on 23.03.2010 at Chopanki, Veori, Rajastan and FIR was lodged in the concerned Police Station on 24.03.2010 while claim petition was furnished before the Insurance Company on 31.03.2010. In that case the delay was not there in registering the FIR only the intimation of incident to the Insurance Company there was delay of seven days and that was well explained as the owner at that time was not present at the spot he was called on after the incident of theft and thereafter he rushed to the spot from a long-distance place and became aware about the incident and thereafter he registered the claim and intimation after seven days. But here in this case the Complainant in his statement mentioned that on 12.04.2017 at about 8 PM he locked his Motor Bike outside his house and entered into his room and came out after 15 minutes and then found the Motor Bike was missing. But he registered the FIR on 17.04.2017 that is long after five days and no explanation is there either in the FIR or in his statement or in his Written Consumer Complaint. In the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred by the appellant where the investigator of Insurance Company investigated the theft and found that the story of theft was genuine one. But here in this particular case the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company found no cogent evidence about the actual theft of the vehicle. Rather, one and a half months back prior to the incident the claimant raised another claim of stolen away his Motor Bike and this incident was not recorded in the National Crime Record Burau Office. So, the Ld. Forum has rightly observed that there was some suspicious conduct on the part of the Complainant which negated his genuineness of the claim. We know very well that Consumer Protection Act no doubt was enacted to secure the interest of the consumers and the provisions of Consumer Protection Act should be interpreted and construed in a benevolent manner. But on the contrary it is also the basic principle of Consumer Protection Act to protect such customers or consumers who comes before the redressal agencies with clean hands. Here in this particular case the Claimant/Complainant does not come before the Forum in clean hands. He had deliberate latches in informing the incident to the Police in due time. Secondly, Police could not find sufficient space to trace out the vehicle as there was a gap of five days between the date of incident and the date of FIR. Submitting of FRT on the part of the Investigating Agency also proves that Police was not given sufficient time to conduct the investigation in a proper manner. So, the Final Order of Ld. Forum appears to be genuine, trustworthy, found no inherent defects in the process of adjudication. So, the appeal devoids of any merit.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda.