The petitioner is represented. The other side remains absent. I have heard argument so placed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner. It may be noted that at this stage that this proceeding was set ex-parte against the O.P. No.2. I have very closely and attentively gone through the entire case record.

This complaint petition u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act was filed by complainant Sri Chandra Kanta Nath, S/o late Bhabendra Nath of village Bakaitari, P. S Matia, Dist. Goalpara. According to the complainant, he is the owner of a motor vehicle under registration No.AS 01/CC-6545 and it stood insured with opp. Party No.1 and 2 w.e.f. 20.5.2010 with a validity period till 15.5.2011. The complainant paid insurance amount of Rs.18,237/- as premium. On 2.1.2011, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gotonga under Samaguri P S., Dist. Nagaon. At that time, it was going towards Kaziranga from Guwahati and the accident occurred at about 4.00 a.m. The nearby police were informed on this matter. GDE was made vide Samaguri P. S. GDE No. 13, dated 2.1.2011. The matter of the accident was investigated into and the police prepared 2.1.2011. The matter of the accident was investigated into and the police prepared a report and the complainant collected the same at a subsequent stage. The complainant further stated in his petition that within five days of the said accident, he communicated this matter to the respondents and he also claimed for loss of damage caused by the said vehicle and the said claim was registered, vide claim No.CL10035962, but till date no compensation amount was quantified to meet the damages caused to the complainant due to the motor vehicular accident that occurred on an eventful day. By this time, the complainant got his vehicle repaired by towing it to the servicing center. He also suffered a loss of business because, during that period, he failed to ply the vehicle. The Complainant further sent a legal notice to the respondent, dated 8.9.2011, with a demand for making payment of the loss and sought compensation in respect of the said vehicle, but no response was made by the Opp. Parties. There were gross negligence and deficiency of service and because of that, the complainant has suffered a pecuniary loss of Rs.4,12,000/-.

The complainant prayed to this court to pass a necessary order directing the respondents to jointly and severally make payment of the aforementioned amount with interest w.e.f, the date of accident till it final realization.

In support of his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents:

1) Registration certificate of the vehicle, vide Regd No. AS-01/ CC-6545

2) Insurance policy of the vehicle valid from 20.5.2010 to midnight of 19.5.2011.
3) The police report,

4) Xerox copy of the legal notice served upon the respondent.

5) A/D of the legal notice.

Though notices were issued to the Opp. Parties, but they did not respond the same and the case proceeded ex-parte against them. 

The complainant files evidence on the affidavit under order 18, Rule 4 of CPC. I have gone through the same. I have also gone through the submitted documents available record. From the extracted copy of the GDE. it appears on that on 2.1.2011, the vehicle in question met with an accident at Gotonga under Samaguri Police Station of District Nagaon. From the insurance paper and the other documents, it is fairly established that the complainant was the owner of the said vehicle and the vehicle was insured with opp. Party No.1 & 2. Though the complainant in his claim petition has claimed that he incurred a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- towards meeting repairing expenses, but no document is filed to substantiate this claim. But, from the evidence on record, it is proved that the vehicle in question met with an accident No satisfactory evidence is led to establishing the actual cost of repairing of the said vehicle is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with opp. Party No.1 & 2 The complainant further states that within five days of the said accident he communicated this matter to the Opp. Party, but there was no response from them. Further, from the legal notice issued in their address, it is also established that the complainant took steps to inform the respondent regarding his claim for compensation for the damages his vehicle suffered due to the motor vehicular accident. From the same, it is apparent that the vehicle was damaged due to this accident; but the complainant has failed to submit any MVI report to prove the extent of damage of the said vehicle. By not responding to the said claim which was registered under the Office of the Opp. Parties and by not disposing of the same, the Opp. Parties have displayed utter disregard and negligence on their part and there was definitely the deficiency of service In that view of the matter, the opp. Parties are liable to indemnify the complainant for the pecuniary loss he suffered as a result of this accident. But, from the evidence, it appears that the complainant has not satisfactorily proved the exact pecuniary loss he suffered towards meeting the repairing cost. However, to meet the ends of justice, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is hereby assessed under that head. Further, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs 7,000/. for carrying the vehicle from the place of accident to the garage, but he in his claim petition as well in his evidence has deliberately skipped the matter as to where the vehicle was repaired. However, for meeting the ends of justice, a sum of Rs 2,000/- is hereby assessed under the head of transportation of the said vehicle. The same fate met that the claim of the applicant as regards loss of business in his claim petition, he very assertively stated that he suffered loss of Rs.1,50,000/- under loss of business, but he refrained from letting satisfactory evidence about the extent of period during which the vehicle remained under repairing process and the claimant failed to ply the same to earn his livelihood. So, this claim is not substantiated by their evidence on record. However, to meet the ends of justice this forum deems it proper to quantify the loss of income at Rs 10,000 Under the head of mental suffering, another sum of Rs 5,000/- is hereby worked out and finally, a sum of Rs 5,000/- is hereby quantified to meet the cost of litigation Upon final computation, a sum of Rs.47,000/- is hereby worked out and this the amount the respondents are liable to pay to the complainant.

It is hereby directed that the respondent shall clear this amount within two months from the date of passing of this order and it is further clarified that on the event of non-payment of this amount, it will entail interest @ 9% per annum till its final realization.

This case is disposed of accordingly.