The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. WB66 P2243 (HERO GLAMOUR DRS) and the said vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company IIFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE Co. It has been stated that on 09/02/2017 at 01:30 P.M. the vehicle was parked by the complainant with full lock condition at Rathbari Sabji Market. When the complainant came back to the spot after marketing the said vehicle was not found on the spot where the vehicle was parked and thereafter, the complainant realized that the vehicle was stolen. Soon after the incident the complainant filed a written complaint before the I.C. English Bazar Police Station but the Police Station did not give any acknowledgement to that effect. There after the English Bazar Police Station started a case under Sec. 379 IPC on 18/02/2017 and the delay of drawing FIR was caused due to the latches of the Police Officer of the English Bazar Police Station for which the complainant cannot be held responsible for the delay in lodging FIR by the Police. After the incident, the complainant filed all relevant documents along with duly filled up claim form to the Insurance Company. It has been further stated that the vehicle was insured from the period 26/06/2016 to 25/06/2017. But the O.P. Insurance Company did not realize the amount as such the complainant has come to the Forum claiming his proper relief.

The petition has been contested by O.P. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the Insurance Company contending inter alia that the  instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The case has been falsely filed without any merit. The further defense case is that the FIR was lodged on 18/02/2017 where the incident of theft of vehicle took place on 09/02/2017. There is no explanation of gap of 9 days for lodging FIR which is in gross violation of the terms and condition of the policy.                         

The further defense case is that the complainant did not inform the Insurance Company immediately after the incidence about the theft of the vehicle. So on considering the facts and circumstances the instance case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

During trial the complainant was himself examined as PW-1 and he was cross-examined in the form of questionnaires. Beside that no witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. In this case the O.P. did not adduce any evidence to its defense.         

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that the complainant is a resident of village Darkinara under the P.S. Chanchal but from the evidence it is found that the complainant came to Rathbari Sabji Market for purchasing vegetables and he parked the vehicle at Rathbari near Sabji Market. The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that the story of theft of motor cycle is not at all believable that a person will held from Chanchal for purchasing vegetables to Malda Rathbari Sabji Market. Is it a probable fact? Generally a person of locality under the Chanchal Police Station will purchase vegetable from the nearing places of Chanchal. So the story of coming to Rathbari Sabji Market is not at all believable.

This Forum is also in the same view with the submission of the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. that a person will not come to purchase vegetables from Chanchal to Rathbari Sabji Market

Next vital point is to be considered whether there is gross violation of the terms and condition of the policy. According to the terms and condition of the policy when a theft of vehicle took place the complainant should inform the concerned Police Station or to the Insurance Company but on perusal of the record it is found that the complainant informed the Police Station on 18/02/2017 whereas the incident of theft of vehicle took place on 09/02/2017 i.e. after lapse of nine days from the date of occurrence. In this regard the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the complainant went to the Police Station immediately after the incident but the Police Office did not lodge any complaint and it was latches on the part of the Police Officer nor it is the latches on the part of the complainant.

In this regard, the complainant did not file any document to show that he lodged the complaint to the Police Station on the date of incident. Moreover, when the Police Station did not draw any FIR why the complainant did not inform the Supdt. Of Police by registered post with A.D. So the argument raised by the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant that due to the latches of drawing FIR on the part of the Police Officer of English Bazar Police Station is not believable. Moreover, no document has been filed by the complainant to show that the complainant informed the matter to the Insurance Company.

The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant refers the Case Law reported in “Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017” By that case Law the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant wants to impress upon the Forum that it is a social beneficial legislation but he further submitted that mere technical ground the claim cannot be defeated. It is no doubt that the Consumer Protection Act,1986 was passed for the benefit of the consumer but the Consumer Protection Act, was not passed to defeat the Provision of Consumer Protection Act by lodging false claim by any consumer.

So on considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed without any cost.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant /O.P. free of cost on proper application.