Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

          Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad in Complaint Case No.CC/53/2015 dismissing the complaint on contest without any cost.

          The brief fact of the case was that the Appellants/Complainants purchased one Bolero GLx7 car taking loan for an amount of Rs. 2.20 lakh from the OP No. 1 Finance Company. The said loan was to be repaid along with interest in 28 instalments. The car was insured with the OP No. 2 through an Insurance policy having a policy period of one year w.e.f 19.11.2012 to 18.11.2013 and for a sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

          On 29.10.2013, at night, when the Appellants/Complainants were in Bihar in connection with matrimonial affair of their daughter, the said vehicle was stolen from the residential garage of the Appellants/Complainants. The absence of the vehicle in the garage was first noticed in the morning of 30.10.2013 by the son of the Appellants/Complainants who informed the matter to the Appellants/Complainants over phone immediately.

          The Appellants/Complainants returned from Bihar on 04.11.2013 and lodged an FIR with Nalhati P.S. A Nalhati P.S. case No. 271/2013 was initiated based on that FIR. The incident was also informed verbally to Respondent/OP No. 2 and a communication informing the incident was made to Respondent/OP No. 1 after more than one year on 25.11.2014.

          The Appellants/Complainants, however, made a steady repayment of 24 instalments out of the total of 28 and was not a defaulter loanee at the relevant point of time. The Appellants/Complainants then raised an insurance claim along with all relevant papers to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- being equivalent to the sum assured of the policy. The Respondent/OP No. 2, however, did not take any action for sanctioning any amount against the said claim.

          This made the Appellants/Complainants aggrieved and resort to the Ld. District Forum filing the Complaint Case which led to the issuing of the impugned judgment and order.

          Heard the Appeal ex-parte against the Respondents/OPs. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants/OPs briefly described the contents of the incident in the same lines as was narrated in the complaint.

          Admitting the delay of 4 days for lodging the FIR with the Nalhati P.S, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the said delay was caused due to the absence of the Appellants/Complainants who were in Bihar at the relevant point of time in connection of their daughter’s matrimonial affair.

          The Ld. Advocate went on to submit that the Complaint Case was dismissed on two grounds which are (i) there was delay in lodging FIR with the local P.S and (ii) the duplicate key of the vehicle could not be handed over to the Respondent/OP No. 2, the Insurance Company, on demand.

          In addition to the reason for delayed lodging of FIR as already put forward by the Appellants/Complainants, the Ld. Advocate pleaded his client’s inability to hand over the duplicate key of the vehicle to the Respondent/OP No. 2 because of the refusal of the Respondent/OP No.1 to return the duplicate key which it was in possession of.

          The Ld. Advocate drew the notice of the Bench to running page 35, the FRT which was submitted by the Police Authority and continued to submit that the very FRT left indication that the happening of the incident of theft was no distortion of fact.

          The Ld. Advocate, in the above context, cited with the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1207/2008 [CEO, Cholamandalam and Anr.—Vs—Mr. Abhijeet Saini and Anr.] reported in 2014 (4) CPR 178 (NC) wherein, in a case of serious accident causing death, the Hon’ble Commission observed that accepting a person to rush first to the Insurance Company in a similar serious situation was too much and was beyond prudence of common man. It was observed further that provisions of delay in informing Insurance Company or lodging report with Police were of little significance as those were of directory nature and not of mandatory nature.

          With the submissions as above, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

          Perused the papers on record and considered submissions of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants/Complainants. The record revealed that there was delay of 4 days in lodging an FIR. The FIR might have been lodged on behalf of the Appellants/Complainants by his son in their absence. It was peculiar that knowing the incident of theft from the telephonic conversation that the Appellants/Complainants had with their son, they remained indifferent without instructing their son to approach the Police Station for lodging the FIR. The delayed lodging of FIR led to lessen the probability of recovering the subject vehicle. This was a lapse of the part of the Appellants/Complainants, as alleged.

          What was more astonishing, the incident was allegedly reported verbally to the Respondent/OP No. 2, being the Insurance Company. The verbal information which was claimed to have been delivered, was difficult to accept in absence of any document of evidentiary value, particularly when the Appeal was being heard ex-parte. The Insurance Company had reasons to dispute the claim and to smell something wrong in the facts detailed in the complaint because of the acts, apparently bizarre, on the part of the Appellants/Complainants. The Insurance Company, therefore, had no scope to engage any surveyor to ascertain the veracity of the incident under complaint and to assess, as well, the quantum of loss sustained by the Appellants/Complainants out of the incident of theft when the financial liability towards payment of the cost of the lost vehicle was reposed upon the Insurance Company—the Respondent/OP No. 2.

          The record further revealed that the incident was reported to the Respondent/OP No. 1, the financier after more than one year. Running page 28, being the letter addressed to the Branch Manager, Mahindra Finance, Beharampur, Murshidabad dated 25.04.2014 revealed that the Appellants/Complainants had claimed the duplicate key of the subject vehicle from the Respondent/OP No. 1 which the Respondent/OP No. 1 was allegedly in possession of. The record revealed that the Respondent/OP No. 1 denied the charge of keeping any duplicate key with it as there was no such practice prevalent with it in case of refinance loan which the Appellants/Complainants had availed themselves of.

          The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in [CEO Cholamondalam and Anr.—Vs—Mr. Abhijeet Saini and Anr.] Supra does not appear to be squarely applicable on the instant issue where the incident was of theft and not of a magnitude of loss of life as was in the cited case.

          Ld. District Forum has referred to in the impugned judgment and order in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission where delayed information to Police and to the Insurance Company led to the passing of an order justifying the repudiation.

          Such being our observation, we are constrained to hold that there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld. District Forum.

          Hence,

                                                          Ordered

          that the Appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.