The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Abdul Rahaman Ansari u/s 12 of the Act, 1986 which was registered before this Forum as Complaint Case No. 55 of 2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant purchased one TVS Apachi RTR 160 Motor Cycle and the same was registered before the RTO Malda and the vehicle was registered as WB66V 27257. After purchase the said vehicle it was insured with the O.P. The annual premium was Rs.1895/- (Rupees One Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Five Only) and that policy was valid for one year from the date of purchase. On 17/01/2017 at about 04-00 P.M. the said motor cycle bearing No. WB 66V 7257 was stolen from the Vivekananda Field under the P.S. Pukuria, Dist. – Malda. Thereafter the complainant searched here and there at his level best to find out the said motor cycle. But all his attempts were in vain. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to the Pukuria P.S. for lodging a complaint over the said incident. But the Officer-in-Charge said to the complainant that he will take few days to find or trace the said stolen motor cycle and after seven days from the date of occurrence i.e. on 25/01/2017 the Pukuria P.S. started a case bearing Pukuria P.S. Case No. 37/2017 dt. 25/01/2017 u/s. 379 IPC. The complainant also informed the O.P. No.1 after the incident on next day i.e. on 18/01/2017 but the O.P. No.1 informed the complainant that the O.P. No.1 will register the claim after registering the FIR number and after receiving FIR No. the complainant registered the claim on 27/01/2017. After that the complainant appealed in advance to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 for compensation and submitted the documents but ultimately the O.P. repudiated the claim as such the complainant has come to the Forum to redress her grievance.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps 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. The policy was valid from 11/02/2016 to 10/02/2017 on certain terms and condition.

The definite defense case is that the FIR was lodged on 25/01/2017 after the lapse of 8 days from the date of loss of the vehicle and intimation was lodged to the Insurance Company on 27/01/2017 after gap of 10 days from the date of theft of the vehicle in question which is in gross violation in the terms and condition of the policy as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. During trial the complainant was himself examined as P.W.-1 cross-examined. He also filed documents. No other witness is examined on behalf of the O.P.

::POINT FOR DETERMINATOIN::

           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 submits that the vehicle was stolen and he informed the matter to the Police Station at Pukuria on the next date of occurrence i.e. the theft of the vehicle.  The Police Station did not take any step for registering the case for theft of the vehicle. The Police Station registered the case on 25/01/2017. So there were no latches on the part of the complainant.

 It is a fact that the Police Station did not lodge any complaint even after receiving any complaint from the complainant but what prevented the complainant to lodge any written complaint after the theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Co. Though, explanation was given in the petition of complaint that the O.Ps’ office directed him to lodge claim after giving the FIR. But such explanation is not sufficient and not believable as because the complainant may lodge a written complaint after obtaining a receipt copy from the office of O.P. No.1.But nothing was done. So the explanation as given by the complainant is not believable at all. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. argued that the incident took place on 17/01/2017 where from the document it is found that the complainant gave a letter of authority to his son on 18/01/2017. How it is possible when the vehicle was stolen on 17/01/2017? How the authority was given? So by that argument the Ld.Lawyer of the O.Ps wants to impress upon this Forum, actually, no case of theft of vehicle took place at all.

 This Forum is also the same view on the submission of the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. that how the letter of authority was given on 18/01/2017 when there was no existence of the vehicle as per submission of the complainant. Moreover at the time of lodging claim the key of the vehicle was not deposited to the Insurance Company.  So on considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.       

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

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

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