Ld Advocates for the parties are present. Judgement is pronounced in open Commission in 3 pages 2 separate sheet of papers.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is inhabitant of the above noted address. Her husband ShibsankarMaji died due to Road Traffic Accident on 07.06.2017. Her husband has a Maruti car bearing No. WB-34AG/0149 which was damaged due to road traffic accident on 07.06.2017. On 07.06.2017 at about 11:30 P.M. accident took place on GhatalPanskura pitch road at Beliaghata bus stand under P.S. Daspur, PaschimMedinpur. One truck bearing No. WB-33A/3475 dashed the said Maruti car bearing No. WB-34AG/0149. As a result the Maruti car has been damaged badly. One Criminal case has been started at Daspur P.S. vide F.I.R. No. 302/2017 dt. 29.11.2017. The costs of repairing of the said Maruti Car No.WB-34AG/0149, Engine No. F8BIN4650110, Chasis No. MA3EVB1150147528 was estimated at Rs. 1,79,975/- byMonalisa Auto. The above noted vehicle has been covered by insurance policy at National Insuranc e Co. Ltd. Vide insurance policy 150305/31/16/6100014481 valid Upto 17/10/2017. On 07.05.2018 a letter for demanding of Rs. 1,79,795/- for repairing the said Maruti Car No. WB-34AG/0149 was sent to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. P.O.& P.S. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. But till now the insurance co. has given no reply. Under the circumstances MithuMaji W/O Lt. Shib Shankar Maji of the above address has filed the case for recovery the O.D. Claim of Rs. 1,79,795/-+ litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/- Total 2,09,795/-.

Notices were duly served upon the ops calling upon them to answer the complaint. The ops have resisted the claims of the complainant by filing a written version thereto. Succinctly, put the contentions made can be delineated as follows: The OPs denied all the allegations contained in the complaint para wise  except those are specifically admitted in this written version or otherwise dealt with, and added that nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. The O.Ps.herein  submit that the instant complainant having been influenced by some evil brains made a written complaint by implanting a Truck being No. WB-33A/3475 and mentioned in the written complaint before the Daspur Police Station on 29.11.2017 after a period of 6 months from the stated date of accident on 07.06.2017. The stated Truck WB-33AG/0149 never dashed the stated victim ShibshankarMaji along with the stated Maruti Car WB-34AG/0149 but the Complainant willfully delayed to initiate the complaint with Daspur Police Station with some other motive and till the availability of a hired Truck for such purpose to show the same involved in the stated accident. The Opposite Parties firmly believe that the complainant herein has also filed Motor Accident Claim case before the Ld. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for getting compensation of the death of her husband in such a fabricated accident and this O.Ps pray for appropriate direction upon the complainant to produce the copy of the charge sheet, seizure lists & other papers/documents relating to the Daspur P.S. Case No. 302/17 dt. 29.11.2017. It is also submitted here that the stated owner-victim was also plying the vehicle for hire as the owner of the vehicle was of no such means to use the vehicle WB-34AG/0149 for his own private use. The Ops herein submit that the complainant had not submitted any such documents as stated in this petition of complainant to investigate as to the happening of any such stated accident.  This O.Ps submit that there is no deficiency in service nor any negligence on the part of the O.Ps as to the allegations raised and as such the instant case be rejected on this score also. The instant Consumer case being otherwise bad the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to this Opposite Party.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                                              2.   Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by ops, evidence of both parties , and other documents viz copies of FIR, DL, insurance Policy and  estimates ofcosts of repair on record.

We have given thoughtful consideration of the rival arguments of Ld Advocates for both parties.

Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it is evident that  the complainant being a consumer has alleged deficiency in service against the ops ; the bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

On scanning and evaluation of the evidence, it appears that the complainant has alleged on oath that  Her husband Shibsankar Maji died due to Road Traffic Accident on 07.06.2017. Her husband has a Maruti car bearing No. WB-34AG/0149 which was damaged due to road traffic accident on 07.06.2017. On 07.06.2017 at about 11:30 P.M. accident took place on Ghatal Panskura pitch road at Beliaghata bus stand under P.S. Daspur, Paschim Medinpur. One truck bearing No. WB-33A/3475 dashed the said Maruti car bearing No. WB-34AG/0149. As a result the Maruti car has been damaged badly. One Criminal case has been started at Daspur P.S. vide F.I.R. No. 302/2017 dt. 29.11.2017. The costs of repairing of the said Maruti Car No.WB-34AG/0149, Engine No. F8BIN4650110, Chasis No. MA3EVB1150147528 was estimated at Rs. 1,79,975/- by Monalisa Auto. The above noted vehicle has been covered by insurance policy at National Insuranc e Co. Ltd. Vide insurance policy 150305/31/16/6100014481 valid Upto 17/10/2017. On 07.05.2018 a letter for demanding of Rs. 1,79,795/- for repairing the said Maruti Car No. WB-34AG/0149 was sent to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. P.O.& P.S. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. But till now the insurance co. has given no reply.

Now it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case and evaluated evidence on record that the ops were not provided with any opportunity to inspect the alleged damaged vehicle or to assess the damages of the vehicle in question. The complainant never disclosed actually in which placed vehicle was kept for about six months up to the date of lodging FIR. The complainant has submitted the estimate of  costs of repair of the vehicle from one mechanic’s shop namely Monalisa Auto mobile but she has not filed any cash memo to establish that the damaged vehicle was actually repaired. The complainant disclosed in course argument that the vehicle was sold as scrapped item as such salvage value of it could not be assessed. So considering the facts and circumstances of the case we observe  that  the ops have no negligence or deficiency  in service in dealing with the claim of costs of repair of the damaged vehicle . The complainant has got no right to claim costs of repair without  repairing the vehicle in question. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Both the points are disposed of accordingly.

        Thus, the instant case fails.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/439 of 2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs is passed.

          Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the parties free of cost