This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for direction upon the O.P./ insurer to reimburse the complainant the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and for a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental pain also with a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is owner of TATA Indica car, being No. WB-74M/4845. He was a policy holder of O.P./ Insurance Company and purchase the policy of Rs.2,00,000/- bearing No.313501/31/2010/9514 valid from 14.03.2012 to 13.03.2013. During the time of policy coverage the said vehicle was stolen away by its driver, Handle Debsharma. The matter was informed to the O.P. At the relevant time petitioner went to Kolkata for treatment and after returning to Raiganj, he realized the theft of the car by the driver. He then lodged complaint at Raiganj PS on 27.12.2012 and informed O.P./ insurer on 28.12.2012. Thereafter he visited the office of the O.P. on several times for insurance claim and he was asked to supply documents like copy of charge sheet FIR etc. He was not able to supply the copy of charge sheet as the investigation was not completed. On 12.12.2013 he asked O.P. in writing to consider his claim. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused driver on 28.02.2014. The complainant collected documents on 03.07.2014 and again on 21.05.2015 sent letter to O.P. to settle his claim. But O.P. did not reopen the claim file and verbally informed him their inability to settle the claim as he failed to submit required documents within time. O.P. therefore closes his claim. Then on 29.06.2015 petitioner gave advocate’s letter, but received no reply. Therefore cause of action arose from 35.06.2015 to file this case before this Forum, with the above mentioned prayer.

O.P./ Insurance Company contested this case by filing written version where they denied the claim of the applicant as it is barred by law, not maintainable and did not admit the incident of theft of the vehicle. O.P. admitted the purchase of the policy ‘Private Car Package Policy Zone-B’, where the policy conditions clearly stated that for limitation as to use of the private car, policy cover use of the vehicle for any purpose other than a higher and reward. The complainant therefore is not entitled to get any compensation for theft of his private car as he violated the mandatory condition of the policy. Moreover, he did not lodge his claim before the O.P. in due time as per provisions of the policy. He did not submit all the relevant documents required as per provisions of the policy like authorization letter, driving license of the driver, etc. Petitioner did not informed the facts of theft of vehicle in due time to the O.P. and therefore his claim is false and for unlawful gain. O.P. was also compelled to close the claim file for delay. Therefore O.P. prays for dismissal of the petition.

To establish the case of the complainant has relied upon affidavit-in-chief sworn in by him as P.W.-1 and relied upon some documents. O.P. also adduced evidence as O.P.W.-1and submitted documents.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, arguments advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

Complainant was the owner of the vehicle, bearing No. WB-74M/4845 and the vehicle was insured by the O.P. for Rs.2,00,000/- under Private Car Policy Zone-B, covering the period 14.03.2012 to 13.03.2013. He lodged FIR at Karnajora Outpost on 27.12.2012 against his driver, Handle Debsharma on the allegation of theft of the vehicle. In the FIR he stated that on 14.12.2012 in the afternoon he handed over the vehicle with key to Handle and went to Kolkata. He returned on 17.12.2012 and found both the driver and car is missing. On 18.12.2012 he went in search of car and driver to the home of driver at Kaliyaganj and from there to his another home at Raiganj, but could not find out the car and the driver. He alleges that driver along with the car and original documents of the car fled away. On 28.12.2012 he informed O.P. about the theft of the vehicle, specifically stating the fact that he handed over the car with key to the driver on 14.12.2012 and did not find the car after return from Kolkata on 17.12.2012 and was confirmed on 18.12.2012 that the driver committed the theft of the car along with the original documents and keys of the car. He again wrote letter to O.P./ Insurance Company on 12.12.2013 for settlement of the insurance claim for such theft of the car. Copy of the FIR, charge sheet and letters to the O.P. have been filed. On 21.05.2015 he again wrote a letter to the Insurance Company requesting to settle the insurance claim for such theft of the car as he had already submitted charge sheet and other documents for settlement of the claim. Lastly, the he sent advocate’s notice, dated 29.06.2015 through his Ld. Advocate, Animesh Roy asking O.P. to pay compensation for the theft of the insured vehicle within one month and copy of the same is filed. Complainant as P.W.-1 also deposed accordingly all these facts and was cross examined. He deposed that the charge sheet was submitted against the driver, Handle Debsharma in G.R. Case No.2169/2012 before Ld. CJM, Raiganj. The copy of the charge sheet U/s 406 IPC is also filed. He denied that he failed to supply all necessary documents to the O.P. within time to make his insurance claim.

Branch Manager of O.P. company at Raiganj deposed as O.P.W.-1 that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for theft of his private car as he violated the mandatory provision for using the vehicle other than his personal use and the policy is not for any purpose other than a higher and reward. Complainant violated  the mandatory provision by not making his claim within due time and the claim is made by the insured after lapse of a long period even without submission of all relevant documents as per provisions of the insurance policy. The authorization letter of the driver and the driving license of the driver were not submitted. The police case against the driver U/s 406 IPC on the basis of the written complaint and after investigation by the police. That, as it is a case of breach of trust and not a case of theft, so company is not liable to pay any claim.

We have gone through the complaint petition, written version, documents filed by the complainant, policy papers and heard arguments of Ld. Advocates of both the parties. Complainant has been able to prove that this vehicle was found missing on 17.12.2012. Complainant admitted in the FIR and intimated the theft to the O.P. that the vehicle was handed over with keys and all original documents to the driver on 14.12.2012. Complainant therefore is negligent not keeping the vehicle in his safe custody with full security. The car may be used by the driver for any other purpose, while the policy conditions clearly stated that for limitation as to use of the private car, the policy cover for use of the vehicle for any purpose other than higher and reward and it is a violation of the mandatory provision of the insurance policy.

Secondly, complainant failed to inform the incident of theft to the company immediately after the theft. He came to know about the theft on 17.12.2012 but lodged complaint on 27.12.2012 before the police and intimated the same to the company on 28.12.2012. Such delay in intimation deprives insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into alleged theft of vehicle and make endeavor to recover the same. Intimation of theft was given to the O.P./ Insurance Company after about 11 days of such theft, which is fatal. In this period the vehicle may be taken to far distance, may be sold out and fatal for investigation. It was the paramount duty of insured to inform police and insurance company immediately after the incident. We can refer here the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission as reported in 2015 (1) CPR 145. In the said judgment the decision of National Commission, dated 09.12.2009 in New India Assurance Company versus Trilochan Jane, Appeal No.-321/2005 was mentioned wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that not giving intimation to Insurance Company for 9 days after theft is fatal and disentitled the insured to get compensation or claim money.

Thirdly, the complainant failed to submit necessary documents copy of FIR, charge sheet, etc. to the company within due time and the claim was also made after a long lapse of time and thereby complainant violated the provisions of the insurance policy. He did not produce the authorization letter and driving license of the driver to the Insurance Company within due time. Therefore the O.P. has no other option but to close the claim file of the complainant.

In light of the above discussion this Forum finds that the complainant has not been able to establish his case. O.P. is neither negligent nor deficient to settle the claim but for delayed information and insufficient documents could not settle the claim. We do not find any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P./ Insurance Company. As a result the case fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the case being No.CC - 55/2015 is dismissed on contest.

Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.