20-01-2015 - Heard Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company.

 He submitted that the case before the learned Lower Forum proceeded ex-parte against the Insurance Company due to mis information and mis communication by its lawyer and therefore it could not contest it’s case properly. Otherwise the Insurance Company could have shown the following correspondences made between the parties to justify closer of the claim case of the Complainant- Respondent No.1. The Insurance Company vide it’s letter dated 26.11.2011 asked the complainant for furnishing driving licence of the driver, driving the vehicle at the time of accident, repair bills and the receipt of payment of the bills. The surveyor reported that one Raju Burman was driving the vehicle at the time of accident but the complainant produced the driving licence of one Md. Akmal Sheikh. Therefore the complainant by letter dated 20th February, 2012 was asked to explain the said difference in the names of drivers and why the claim should not be repudiated for not submitting the driving licence of Raju Burman but the complainant failed to comply with the said letter and therefore his case was closed.

2.       Admittedly, the Insurance Company appeared before the learned Lower Forum but did not choose to file written statement, in spite of several opportunities. Ultimately such opportunity was closed.  The learned Lower Forum interalia held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and therefore it was directed to pay Rs. 2,04,000/- being the repairing cost, after deducting 20%, with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of Consumer Case besides  Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of the order, failing which the complainant was given liberty to realize the amount in accordance with law.

3.       According to the Insurance Company due to mis information and mis communication by its lawyer, it could not contest the case properly. Such submission is very vague and general. The Insurance Company should also have been vigilant.

4.       Further, by order dated 12.11.2014 this appeal was adjourned on the prayer of the Insurance Company to enable it to file supplementary affidavit showing proof of exchange of the said correspondences between the parties, but inspite of sufficient opportunity no such supplementary affidavit has been filed. Thus, the said submissions made on behalf of the Insurance Company, justifying purported closer of the case of the complainant, also becomes untenable.

5.       After hearing Mr. Mukherjee at length and going through the materials on record, in our opinion no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

          Let the statutory amount be returned to the appellant.

        Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                        Ranchi,

                        Dated:- 20-01-2015