The instant case was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Forum which was registered as Consumer Case No. 02/18 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as the evidence is that the complainant/petitioner Debobrato Choudhury is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.WB60L/0393 TVS Motor cycle which was registered with vehicle of the Regional Transport Office, Uttar Dinajpur. It has been further stated that the said motor cycle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No.09060531150160139766 and that policy was valid from 09.08.15 to 08.08.16 and that policy was issued from the O.P.No.1 office. On 10.01.16 at night when the complainant was sleeping in his room and the said vehicle was in the house in the stair and on the next morning i.e on 11.01.16 at about 6.30 a,m the petitioner noticed that the grill lock is broken and the said motor cycle was stolen away by unknown miscreants. Thereafter the complainant lodged a written complaint before the Kaliaganj P.S on 11.01.16 and on the basis of the said complaint the Kaliaganj P.S started Kaliaganj P.S. Case No.12/16 dt. 11.01.16 u/s.379 of I.P.C against unknown person. After lapse of time the I.O of this case failed to recover the stolen motor cycle of the complainant and ultimately the I.O submitted Final Report vide Kaliaganj FRT No.131/16 dt. 27.05.16. The petitioner collected the certified copy of GR Case No.175/16. Thereafter the complainant informed the local office of United India Insurance Co. Ltd at Raiganj by registered post with A.D along with all relevant documents on 03.01.16. Thereafter the complainant personally meet the office of O.P.No.2 on 15.01.18 but the O.P. No.2 did not any response and did not take any proper action. The cause of action of the case arose 03.01.18. The complainant has claimed for Rs.41,136/- for the declared value of the Motor Cycle along with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-

The petition has been contested by the O.P./Insurance Co.by filing written version denying all the materials allegation as leveled against the Insurance Co contending inter alia that there is no cause of action to file the claim application. The claim is completely false.

The definite defence case is that the complainant informed the Insurance Co on 08.01.18 regarding the theft of his motor cycle bearing No.WB60L/0393 whereas the alleged incident of theft took place on 11.01.16. As the matter was informed to the Insurance Co. at deleted stage so the Insurance co has got no opportunity to investigate the matter about the theft of the motor cycle. This completely gross violation of the policy condition that as soon as theft is committed the complainant will inform the Insurance Co. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

In this case the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and he was cross examined and file some documents as per firisti. On the other the O.P did not adduce any evidence as because the prayer for time for adducing evidence was rejected.

Now the point for determination whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get any compensation or not.

DECISION WITH REASONS:

At the time of argument the Learned Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question and he purchased the same and the said vehicle was insured with the Insurance Co. within the period when the theft was committed. So the Insurance Co. is liable to pay the compensation as prayed for.

In this case the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P did not argue the case. This Forum has gone through the record. On perusal of the record it is found that on 11.01.16 at 06.30 a.m. the complainant noticed that the grill lock was broken and the said vehicle was stolen away and on 11.01.16 he informed to the local P.S and the local P.S after investigation submitted the final report. On perusal of the report it is also found that the complainant informed the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., Raiganj Branch on 03.01.118 by registered post with A.D. It is not understood why there was delay in lodging information about the theft of motor cycle to the Branch Manager. It may be that the complainant was waiting about the fate of the criminal case lodged by him before the Kaliaganj P.S. But the Kaliaganj P.S after investigation submitted Final Report on 27.05.16 and on perusal of the final report it is found that the complainant was informed about the fate of the case. It is not understood why the complainant did not lodge any information after receiving the certified copy of the final report. The final copy was handed over on 09.08.16. What prevented the complainant to lodge any information to the Branch Manager of the Insurance Co. after the lapse of one and half years. Moreover, according to the terms and condition of the policy when the incident of theft in respect of any vehicle is taken place it should be bring notice immediately to the Insurance Co.

The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits that the complainant is a village person and he has no sufficient knowledge about the terms and condition of the policy to inform the matter to the Insurance Co. But on perusal of the record it is found that the complainant put his signature in English in the petition of complaint and the examination in chief. So definitely it goes to show that he is an educated person. So the defence taken by the complainant that he has no sufficient knowledge is not acceptable. Not a single document has been filed by the complainant to show that on 03.01.16 the Insurance Co. received any intimation regarding theft of motor cycle though in para – 7 in the petition of complaint it has been stated that after receiving the said claim dt.03.01.16 the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 did not give any response of his claim. On perusal of the record the incident took place on 11.01.16. How the complainant informed the Insurance Co. on 03.01.16. It may be the fact that there may be a typographical mistake. It should be 13.01.16 but no document has been produced by the complainant to show that he lodged complaint on 13.01.16. Moreover, non giving any information to the Insurance Co. about the theft is a good ground for repudiation of the claim. Considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Fees paid are correct,

Hence, it is

                                         ORDERED

That the complaint case being no. CC-02/18 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without cost.

Let certified free copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost on proper application.