The petitioner Partha Modak filed a petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act for seeking relief.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition as well as from the evidence is that the petitioner is the owner of the Motor Cycle bearing No.WB60C-7253 which he insured with Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. bearing policy No.313501/31/2014/7083. From the petition as well as the evidence it is found that on 15.12.13 the said motor cycle was stolen in front of his house after breaking handle lock and the petitioner informed the matter to the local P.S. and the O.P. It has been further stated in the petition that at the time of theft of the said motor cycle  the motor cycle was insured with O.P. No.1  i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Raiganj Branch. The petitioner informed the matter to the O.P through letter and copy of FIR and F.R.T was submitted on 23.04.2015. The O.P assured him that he will get the money, but till now he has not received any money.

 From the petition it is found that the petitioner is a young business man and due to the act of the O.P he has been suffering loss in his business as well as he is suffering mental depression due to such lost of motor cycle. Such act of O.P is deficiency in service .The petitioner claimed Rs.60,000/-, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by O.P by filing the written version denying all the material allegations leveled against them contending inter alia that the petition is not maintainable, it is defect of non joinder of parties. From the written version it is found that after received the information of theft from the complainant the O.P informed the matter. The O.P issued letter to the complainant requiring for submission of some documents like FIR, F.R.T etc. From the written version it is found that O.P sent several letters to the complainant for supplying the essential documents to settle the claim. But the complainant did not turn up. The claim as made by the petitioner is premature one and considering such facts and circumstances the O.P/Insurance Co. has prayed for dismissal of the case.

                                DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of argument the Ld.lawyer for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the motor cycle and that motor cycle was theft in front of his house and he informed the matter to the local P.S as well as the O.P/Insurance Co. but no step has been taken by the O.P. As such the petitioner/ complainant have come to this Forum for relief.

It is no doubt theft of a motor cycle from the owner is a miserable fact but the claimant did not file any document to show  that the motor cycle in question was theft in front of his house. When a theft is made it will be the general tendency of the human to inform the matter to the local P.S. But no document has been filed by the claimant to show that the matter was informed to the P.S as regards to the theft. Ld. Lawyer for the petitioner files only the Xerox copy of a letter showing that the petitioner submitted purchase invoice, FIR, police final report and F.R.T accepted by the court. The Xerox copy is filed showing that the O.P/Insurance Co, Raiganj Branch received on 26.04.2015. But from the written version it is found that the written version was filed after that date. In this regard Ld. Lawyer for the O.P submitted that the document cannot be relied upon as because the original received copy should be filed. So, no reliance can be given on the basis of a Xerox copy of letter. This Forum is also the same view with the submission of the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P that the documents carries no value at all as because why the Insurance Co. will deny such existence of letter as it was filed long before of the filing of the written version.

The next point argued by the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P is that the petitioner has not filed any document to show the amount of claim of Rs.60,000/-. There must have some basis. Whereas the Ld.lawyer of the O.P submits Xerox copy of the policy showing that sum assured is Rs.28,000/-. So, the claim of Rs.60,000/- has no basis at all. How this Forum will come to the conclusion that there was a theft of motor cycle of the petitioner. It is to be mentioned that in order to dispose the matter  a minimum document like FIR , F.R.T etc are required to be filed , but nothing has been done. This Forum is not a court of charity as and when a people will come and claim that my valuable article has been theft and the Forum will pay compensation.

Considering the facts and circumstances the petition is likely to be dismissed.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the instant consumer complaint being No. CC - 36/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.  

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.