Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, it is private limited company doing business in transportation. Motor vehicle No.MH-46-H-0686, which is a heavy truck was insured with the opponent. On 16th September, 2011, driver Shri Yashwant Waghmore was driving this vehicle in Virag (Andhra Pradesh) and proceeding towards Maharashtra State. On 20th September, 2011, he was passing through N.H.No.7 district Adilabad(Andhra Pradesh). The driver saw electric wires hanging over near the Trailer of the vehicle. Therefore, he applied break immediately to prevent contact with the wires. Due to sudden break, the General Cargo which was laden behind the Trailor (vehicle) came forward and damaged the Trailer. Adilabad police prepared Panchanama on 23rd September, 2011. The complainant submitted the claim to the opponent but the opponent repudiated the claim on the ground that accident was not due to any external means. Therefore, notice was issued on 14th December, 2011. As the opponent has not satisfied the claim, the complainant has filed this claim for the recovery of damages of `10,71,475/- with interest and compensation of `50,000/- for mental agony.
2) Inspite of service, the opponent remained absent. Therefore, the matter is proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. Shri Vijay S. Poojary, Director of the complainant filed affidavit of evidence. The complainant submitted written notes of argument. After going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
2) | Whether the complainant is entitled for damages and compensation as prayed ? | No |
2) | What order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
3) As to Point No. 1 & 2 :- According to the complainant vehicle was insured with the opponent. Xerox copy of insurance certificate is produced on record. At the relevant time, one Shri Yashwant Waghmore was driving the vehicle. On 20th September, 2011, he was driving on N.H.No.7 in Adilabad district (Andhra Pradesh). He saw electric wires hanging over near the Trailer and applied the break thereby General Cargo came forward and caused damage to the vehicle. The complainant has produced Xerox copy of the spot panchanama. It means that the accident must have been reported to the police station. The complainant has not produced copy of F.I.R. The complainant has also not filed affidavit of evidence of driver Yashwant Waghmore who was driving the vehicle and witnessed the accident. The complainant has also not produced copies of police statements and other records to support his contention. One Vijay Poojary filed his affidavit in support of the complaint but he is not the witness to the accident. He has no personal knowledge of the accident. There is no evidence on record to corroborate the contention of the complainant about the damage to the vehicle in the accident. Mere filing Xerox copy of panchanama is not sufficient to corroborate the contentions in the complaint. In the absence of police investigation papers including F.I.R. and the affidavit of vehicle driver or other witnesses, the averments made by the complainant can not be accepted.
5) The complainant has submitted copy of judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in AIR 1967 Madras 56. This judgment is not applicable in this case. There is no evidence on record about the damage caused in the accident. In the absence of evidence, we come to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled for damages as prayed. Hence, the following order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint stands dismissed.
2) Inform the parties accordingly.
