The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Legal-cum-Claim Manager, I.C.I.C.I Lombard G.I.C Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar, O.P No.2 is the Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard G.I.C Ltd., Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Balasore Branch, Balasore. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is the owner of a Honda Activa motor cycle bearing Regd. No.OD-01G-9244 and the same vehicle was duly insured under O.P No.1 & 2 vide insurance Policy No. 3005/2110597798/00/00000/0381 for the period from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2016 midnight with total insured value of Rs.49,115/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand one hundred fifteen) only. On 27.07.2015, one unknown person stolen the said motor cycle of the Complainant when he had gone to betel shop at Ghatgharasahi, Nilgiri. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged F.I.R on 28.07.2015 at Nilgiri P.S against his stolen vehicle vide P.S Case No.224, dtd.28.07.2015 U/s.379 of I.P.C and accordingly, the investigating Officer found this case to be true case U/s.379 of I.P.C and submitted F.F vide Nilgiri P.S FRT No. Case No.354/15 before the S.D.J.M, Nilgiri. Further, the investigating Officer also corrected some mistakes, where vehicle Regd. No. was wrongly mentioned in DRT report, which was corrected vide order of Hon’ble S.D.J.M, Nilgiri in C.T Case No.288/2015 vide order dtd.03.10.2016. The Complainant had purchased the said vehicle through HDFC Bank two wheeler loan by giving down payments and the Bank authority insured the vehicle directly by O.P No.1 & 2, for which the O.P No.3- Bank has the sole responsibility to recover the loss of the Complainant. The Complainant produced all the relevant documents before the O.Ps for release the cost of the motor cycle, but after receiving all documents, the O.P No.1 & 2 repudiated the claim amount on the basis that sufficient care was not taken by the Complainant. But, when the Complainant claimed against his Policy No. 305/2010597798/00/0000010381, the O.P No.1 & 2 repudiated the claim against the Policy No. 3005/101707042/00/000 against his vehicle No.OD-01G-9244. Thus, the Complainant being harassed, served one legal notice to O.P No.1 on 04.07.2016 requesting to pay the cost of the insured amount of the vehicle, but he did not give any response for the same. The Complainant has prayed for payment of the insured amount of the alleged vehicle along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.1 & 2 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 have further submitted that the insurance policy bearing No. 3005/2110597798/00/00000/0381 covering the period from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2016 is issued subject to its terms and conditions against the motor cycle bearing Regd. No.OD-01-G-9244 registered in the name of the Complainant. On receipt of the claim intimation from the Complainant regarding theft of his vehicle, these O.Ps have issued the Motor Insurance Claim form to the Complainant and also deputed a professional investigating agency S.K Associates to ascertain the genuineness of the claim of the Complainant and on 13.08.2015, the investigating agency submitted the report, where it is found that the ignition key was with the vehicle in the ignition point by the time of alleged theft and thereby, it is ascertained that the Complainant has not taken sufficient care to prevent the theft. However, it is the obligatory responsibility of the Complainant to take all the reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss of damage. But, in this case, the Complainant has failed to do so, for which he has violated the basic terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued in his name and thereby, he is not entitled to get the claim for the alleged theft. Moreover, the Complainant has also failed to produce the other key of the vehicle as well as Owner’s manual book as required by these O.Ps to process the claim of the Complainant. Thus, finding no other way, the competent authority of these O.Ps had repudiated the claim and this fact is also intimated to the Complainant and thereby these O.Ps have no deficiency of service as alleged. So, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost. Neither the O.Ps No.1 & 2 nor their Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. Though the O.P No.3 has appeared in this case through his Advocate, but has not filed his written version in this case. The O.P No.3 is also set ex-parte. Neither the O.P No.3 nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether the case is barred by law of limitation ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that his vehicle Honda Activa motor cycle bearing Regd. No.OD-01G-9244 was duly insured under O.P No.1 & 2, being financed by O.P No.3, has been stolen on 27.07.2015 by unknown person while he went to the betel shop at Ghatgharasahi, Nilgiri. But, after the incident, on next day, he lodged report to the Police, but the vehicle could not be recovered. As his vehicle was under insurance, he claimed about the same before the insurance Company-O.Ps No.1 & 2, who have repudiated the claim on the ground that the ignition key was with the vehicle while the Complainant left the vehicle at the betel shop, for which the Complainant has filed this case praying for payment of the insured amount of the alleged vehicle along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, though the O.Ps No.1 & 2 have filed their written version in this case, but have not contested at the time of hearing of this case and the O.P No.3 has also remained absent and was set ex-parte. However, the plea of the O.Ps No.1 & 2 is as per their written version regarding negligence of the Complainant by keeping ignition key with the vehicle leaving at betel shop. In the complaint petition and in the written version, the insurance policy no. has been given as 3005/2110597798/00/00000/0381. However, the xerox copy of policy document filed by the Complainant discloses the policy no. as 3005/2010597798/00/0000010381, which is different as in the complaint petition and also in the written version. The policy was valid at the time of the incident. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 came to know about keeping of the ignition key with the vehicle by the Complainant from the professional investigating agency S.K Associates, which is hearsay evidence as the professional investigating agency has no idea about it. So, his information is neither corroborative nor conclusive, for which that should be ignored. Then it remained the admitted fact that the vehicle was stolen. So, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the O.Ps No.1 & 2 are liable to comply the claim of the policy. The O.P No.3 has no liability in this case being a financer.    

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the complaint by directing the O.Ps No.1 & 2 to pay the insured amount of Rs.49,115/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand one hundred fifteen) only on production of relevant documents by the Complainant in support of his claim within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the insured amount from the date of order till realization. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for the same. No cost and compensation allowed in the peculiar circumstances of the case taking into consideration of negligence of the Complainant for filing of wrong policy no. in the complaint petition. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and dismissed on ex-parte against the O.P No.3, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.49,115/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand one hundred fifteen) only on production of relevant documents by the Complainant in support of his claim within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the insured amount from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps No.1 & 2 as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps No.1 & 2 to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 29th day of November, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.