The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Nirmal Das S/o. Lt. Debicharan Das, Village – Azimpur, P.O. Chandipur, Dist. Malda (West Bengal) u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered before this Forum as Complaint Case No. 65/2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant Nirmal Das purchased one Super Splender Hero Motor Cycle being Chassis No. MBLJA05EKDJ16473 and Engine No: JA05ECD9JI6233 and the said vehicle was duly insured with the Malda National Insurance Co. Ltd. for a period of one year starting from 02/09/2016 to 01/09/2017 and the IDV value of the vehicle was assessed as Rs. 31,500/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Only). It has been further stated from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence that the said vehicle was stolen from the house of the complainant on 30/04/2017 at about 02-30 P.M. The complainant submitted written complaint before the E.B.P.S. and also informed the O.P. Insurance Co. The officials of the Insurance Company asked the complainant to file some documents in original. Accordingly, the complainant filed those documents as sought for by the Insurance Company. Though the fact of the theft was intimated to the Insurance Company but ultimately, the Insurance Company did not satisfy the claim of the complainant for which the complainant is suffering from mental pain and agony and finding no other alternative he has filed the case claiming compensation for mental pain and agony along with litigation cost along with release of claim of the amount of Rs. 31,500/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Only).

The petition has been contested by the National Insurance Company by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the Insurance Company contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable and the case has been filed by suppressing the real fact.

 The definite defense case is that the vehicle was stolen on 30/04/2017. The complainant lodged the general diary at the English Bazar Police Station on 31/05/2017 which is almost one month after the loss of the vehicle and no valid reasons has been mentioned for delay of lodging FIR. Moreover, the incident of theft of vehicle was intimated to the O.P. Insurance Company on 08/06/2017 for which lapse of 38 days from the date of theft which is a gross violation of the terms and condition of the policy.  So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.     

In order to prove the case the complainant was himself examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. Another witness Sri Siddhartha Das was examined as PW-2. On the other hand no witness was examined on the behalf of the O.P. During trial the complainant filed documents by way of Firisti in xerox copy.

 Now the point for consideration: Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not ?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company and the vehicle was stolen from his house for which the complainant is entitled to get the IDV value of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 31,500/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Only) as per policy. So the complainant in order to prove the case has examined another witness Sri Siddhartha Das. The evidence of P.W.-2 is not believable as because he cannot say the location of Insurance Office at Malda though in his Examination-in-Chief he stated that he went to Insurance Office with the complainant. On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. Insurance Company argued that no doubt in the case of theft of the vehicle a policy holder is entitled to get the value of IDV of the vehicle if the terms and condition of the policy is fulfilled. According to the argument as advanced by the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. isthat there is a gross violation of the terms and condition of the policy He submitted that the complainant did not inform the Insurance Company immediately after the theft of the vehicle but the complainant informed about the theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company after the lapse of 38 days. Definitely, it is a gross violation of the policy. Moreover, the matter was informed to the P.S. near about a delay of one month. It is also one of the causes for not getting any relief as and when it is found that there is a gross violation of the terms and condition so definitely the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Moreover, the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that the chassis number as mentioned in the petition of complaint differs with the number in the policy. Such difference of the policy number also raises a strong suspension about the genuineness of the case.

 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.