Recently, my friend’s wife became a victim of chain-snatching when out for an evening walk. Fortunately, the gold chain broke and fell on the ground. When the thief tried to escape (without the chain), she raised an alarm and managed to get him nabbed with the assistance of the passersby. Her first reaction afterwards was to let bygones be bygones (since she had not suffered any loss). And, the thief had also got good thrashing from the onlookers. But, like a good citizen, she decided to lodge an official police complaint.
That’s when the trouble began! The police arrived 30 minutes later and took the thief to the police station. My friend’s wife was also requested to accompany. She went and lodged a complaint and the process took 3-4 hours.
To make it worse, the police asked her to hand over the broken chain as “evidence”, promising it would be returned after the case was closed. She was reluctant, but she had no choice. It took three-four visits to the police station and good six months before she finally got the chain back.
Meanwhile, the cop concerned claimed credit for nabbing the chain snatcher and even received an award from the Mumbai police commissioner.
The same archaic and inefficient judicial/police system exists in the personal finance arena as well. It would be almost comical, if the results weren’t so tragic.
Ravi Ranjan’s car was stolen from his house and he filed an FIR so that could make a claim with the insurance company. He realised, to his horror, that he would have to produce a “not traceable” certificate, which the police issue only if they are unable to trace it after three months of reporting the loss.
More From This Section
The insurance claim is payable only after the “not traceable” certificate is given. In Ranjan’s case, the vehicle was, unfortunately, traced.
It had been used for a crime and then abandoned in a faraway city. He had to visit the police station where the recovered vehicle was kept. Then, he had to make a couple of rounds to the police station and was told his car was “evidence” in the case.
The insurance company sent a surveyor to inspect the vehicle. It was alright. Today, the vehicle has been gathering dust at the police station for a few months, even as I write this article.
Of course, there is no chance of the insurance company paying him anything and he has had to take a car loan to buy another car. Now, Ranjan curses his luck that the police actually found his stolen car. He might get his old car one day, but it would have depreciated substantially by then.
Clearly, the judicial system that requires stolen items to be kept as “evidence’ till the case reaches a certain level must change, or we will continue to have law-abiding citizens wishing the police are not able to do their job!
The writer is CEO, Apnapaisa.com
