This is an application under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.                                                                                                                                 

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant, is the owner of the white colour Mahindra Bolero Comper, B.S.II having Registration No. WB73B4130, which was found missing, after it was parked on 14.06.2019, at about 10.p.m., in the place adjacent to the shop of the complainant, namely, Dutta Chicken Shop at Salbari, Siliguri, under a shed in locked condition. After searching and when it was not found, a complaint was lodged on 15.06.2019, with the Inspector-in-Charge of Pradhan Nagar.Police Station, Siliguri. The case was registered as Siliguri P.S. Case No. 298/2019 dt. 15.06.2019 under Section 379 of the I.P.C. As the vehicle had been lost during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, a claim was prefer on 17.06.2019, from the O.P. Insurance Parties. The complainant completed all the formalities as requested by the O.P. Insurance Parties, but the O.P. Insurance Parties did not honour the claim prayer. Finally on 17.12.2019 the O.P. No. 4 regretted their inability on the ground that there had been a misrepresentation of facts with regard to the ignition key and proper steps had not been taken to safe guard the vehicle from loss. On the other had the police had submitted an F.R.T., being No. 92/22 dt. 29.02.2020, indicating their inability to trace the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant had again appealed to the O.P. Insurance Parties and vide their letter dt. 29.09.2020, wherein three (3) reason had been ascribed, No.1 being one of the two(2) ignition key was duplicate, No. 2 being vehicle model is 2009 where as the theft of the insured vehicle occurred on 14.06.2019 and the usage of the keys was found to be inconsistent to the age of the vehicle and No. 3 being profile of the keys seem to be different and belong to different lock of the vehicle. The complainant therefore, filed this case. Hence this case.

The O.P. Insurance Parties did not appear to contest the claim inspite, receiving the notice and therefore, the case was heard ex-parte.

From the testimony on oath of the complainant as well as the documents filed by the complainant clearly show that the vehicle in question had been found missing and corroborated by the complaint dt. 15.06.2019 Annexure-B. Moreover, the intimation to O.P.

Insurance Parties, finds corroboration from the letter dt. 17.06.2019 Annexure-C, thereby corroborating the complainant’s case of theft of the vehicle in question on 15.06.2019 and the subsequent intimation to the O.P. Insurance Parties. Hence, from the above it becomes clear that the theft of the vehicle in question is not disputed. The only point of contention in this case is with regard to the repudiation of the claim made by the complainant vide the O.P. Insurance Parties’ letter dt. 29.09.2020, being Annexure-E. From the above letter Annexure-E, it transpires that the O.P. Insurance Parties have admitted that the model of the vehicle in question was of 2009 whereas the theft of the above vehicle occurred on 14.06.2019, which is after a laps of ten (10) years. Under the circumstance, the objection raised, that the one of the duplicate key does not belong to the vehicle and the profile of the keys seemed to be different and belong to different locks of the vehicle, can not be a ground for repudiation, when it was well known to the O.P. Insurance Parties that the vehicle in question was ten (10) year old vehicle and the vehicle was also a public carrier as can be seem from the Insurance Policy Annexure-G and therefore, the vehicle was subjected to rough usage being driven by different persons, for a long period of time. The repudiation by the O.P. Insurance Parities on this ground only, can not be accepted. However, the complainant failed to produce the original key and therefore, this claim is a good case for settling on non standard basis. The complainant is therefore, entitled to 75% of the insured amount i.e. Rs. 251220/- ( Rupees Two Lack Fifty One Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Only), which is to Rs. 232379/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Nine Only) and also Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards litigation cost.

It is therefore,                                                                                                      

O R D E R E D

That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex-parte with cost.

The O.P’s. No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant the  amount of Rs. 232379/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Nine Only) and also Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards litigation cost.

Copies of the Judgement be delivered free of cost to the parties.