DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

North 24 Pgs., BARASAT

C.C. No.64/2019

Date of Filing                                   Date of Admission               Date of Disposal

22.02.2019                                      01.03.2019                              29 08 2024

P R E S E N T                                     :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.

                                                :- Sri.  Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.

JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER

            Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for direction to  pay Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant as claim against Insurance Policy, payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-, payment of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost and other reliefs.

            He alleged that he is a registered owner of   a vehicle (Tata LPT 2516 /48BS II) bearing  Registration No. WB-238-4643. On 02.07.2016 complainant entrusted the said vehicle loaded with iron scrap (TMT Prime Steel  and said vehicle has loaded at Angul,Tehsil Chhendipada -, P.O. Nisa, Orissa and with a direction to deliver the same at Nirmal Jyoti Steel at 57/2, Kali Majumder Road, Belur, Howrah with the expectation that aforesaid goods would  be delivered at Howrah within04.07.2016.

            But aforesaid articles were not delivered at the destination point. Then complainant tried to contact with the driver through his cell phone but did not get any response. He became suspicious and initiated to locate the vehicle. He found that the said vehicle has passed through Narayan Garh Toll Tax. The said vehicle was stolen on 03.07.2016 at about 11:00 p.m. The complainant immediately searched the next Toll Plaza where noting about said vehicle was missing.    As such complainant became sure that the said vehicle was stolen with goods in between the aforesaid two Toll Plaza.

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

: :  2  : :

C.C. No./64/2019

            Thereafter complainant rushed to Kharagpur P.S on 05.07.2016 and requested him to help but the concerned police did not any help. The complainant was forced to inform the same to the SDPO Kharagpur in writing on 09.07. 2016. Thereafter FIR was drawn on 04.08. 2016 vide Kharagpur P.S, case No.420 under Section 407 of IPC against the driver of aforesaid vehicle. Complainant informed the incident to the O.P. No 2 over phone and he assured the complainant to provide insurance claim and advised to contact with the O.P. No.1 through in writing for considering of the matter. In the meantime O.P. Nos. 1 and 2  forwarded their letter  dated 02.08.2016, 15.09.2016, 04.10.2016, 28.10.2016, 14.11.2016, 13.12. 2016, 17.01.2017, 17.02.2017 and 17.03.2017 to the complainant for some compliance.   But O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 by their letter dated 17.03.2017 informed the complainant about the repudiation of claim alleging that due to non-cooperation and non submission of documents the claim stands repudiation. Hence the complainant filed this case.

            The opposite parties filed a W.V and denied the entire allegations contending interalia hat the case is not maintainable, case is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary parties and non-joinder of necessary parties. The claim is bad by the principle of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence.

            They further stated that when they came to know about the incident and sent a letter to the complainant on 02.08.2016 directing him to explain within 7 days from the date of receipt of letter as to why the claim should not be repudiated. They also issued some other letters but complainant did not comply the same. Even he did not produce the necessary papers as per their direction. Ultimately without receipt of any reply from the end of the complainant they repudiated the claim vide letter dated 17.03 2017. They prayed for dismissal of the case.

                                                Decisions with Reasons:-

            Complainant in support of his case filed affidavit-in-chief. Opposite parties filed questionnaire and complainant gave answer. Complainant filed BNA. O.P filed BNA. 

            We have heard the Ld. Advocate for complainant and Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties at length.

            We have carefully considered the aforesaid documents.

            On perusal of record we find that complainant alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was entrusted upon a driver for carry out of goods from a place of Orrisa to Belur, Howhah. Articles were loaded at a place of Orrisa on02.07.2016. Complainant got the noting of vehicle on 03.07.2016 at

Narayangarh Toll Plaza and said vehicle was not crossed the next Toll Plaza.

Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./

: : 3  : :

C.C. No./64/2019

But curious enough that the complainant did not disclose the name of the aforesaid driver whom he entrusted the vehicle before the Police Authority. Even the complainant did not produce the copy of driving license of said driver before the concerned police station or the commission.

            Even the complainant not yet produced the identity prove and address prove documents of the said driver relating  to identity  proof of driver before the police station at the time of lodging FiR or before commission. The Ld Advocate of the complainant did not give at the time of hearing of argument.  But after completion  of argument on 27.08 2024 complainant produced copy of charge sheet where it has noted that complainant produced authorized letter and Xerox copy of DL.     But curious enough that voter card, Aadher Card of driver were not produced which are valuable documents regarding identity of  a person.

            On perusal of record we find that the complainant alleged that he got nothing of the said vehicle lastly at Narayangarh Toll Plaza but he did not get any nothing on the next Toll Plaza. But complainant not produced any document relating of Toll Plaza. The statement of the complainant remains a story.

            Even the complainant not yet produced the identity prove and address prove documents of the said driver relating  to identity  proof of driver before the police station at the time of lodging FiR or before commission. The Ld Advocate of the complainant did not give at the time of hearing of argument.  But after completion  of argument on 27.08 2024 complainant produced copy of charge sheet where it has noted that complainant produced authorized letter and Xerox copy of DL.    

            But curious enough that voter card, Aadher Card of driver were not produced which are valuable documents regarding identity of  a person.

            On perusal of record we find that the complainant alleged that he got nothing of the said vehicle lastly at Narayangarh Toll Plaza but he did not get any nothing on the next Toll Plaza. But complainant not produced any document relating of Toll Plaza. The statement of the complainant remains a story.

            On perusal of record we find that complainant did not lodge FIR relating to the aforesaid incident before 04.08.2016. He alleged in the complaint that he wanted help from the Kharagpur P.S.but they did not provide any such help. Complainant did not state in the petition of complaint that he went to Kharagpur P.S immediately after the incident for lodging FIR. We find from the

Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./

: :  4  : :

C.C. No./64/2019

record that FIR was lodged on 04.08.2016 and also find that  the complainant  filed an application before S.D.O Paschim Midnapore which was  forwarded  to the concerned O.C on 11.07. 2016 and as per the said application Kharagpur P.S. started FIR on 04.08.2016. Complainant failed to give explanation as to why he did not lodge FIR on 11.07. 2016.

            Complainant did not state in the complaint that aforesaid vehicle was insured under the opposite parties. But the complainant produced copy of insurance  policy wherefrom it is clear before us that said vehicle was insured for the period from 11.02.2016 to 10.03.2017.

            Complainant stated that he informed the incident to the opposite parties over phone but no document has been filed in support of the fact that complainant informed the aforesaid  incident to the opposite parties immediately after the incident.  

            On perusal of record we also find that in spite of several  requests by the opposite parties complainant not yet produced any document before the opposite parties in respect of  their claim. We find that alleged incident  took place within the validaty  period of  aforesaid  insurance policy.

            We also find that complainant could not produce the name and address of the driver of aforesaid vehicle at the time of lodging FIR.  Even complainant did not produce any document relating to identity of driver of aforesaid vehicle and relating to residential address of driver.  Such as voter card and Aadher Card so that police could investigate on this point.

            Complainant could not produce any document relating to market price of the vehicle.

            Complainant did not produce any document relating to the aforesaid vehicle.

            On perusal of record we find that on 17.03.2017 opposite parties repudiate the claim and rejected the aforesaid claim.

            Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainant could not produce necessary documents in support of his claim. Accordingly we find that complainant failed to established his grievance by sufficient documents.

Contd. To Page No. 5 . . . ./

: :  5  : :

C.C. No./64/2019

            On perusal of record, we find that the complainant is the consumer and opposite parties are the service providers.  

            Having considered to the facts and circumstances of the case, materials on records, we are of the confirm view that complainant has filed to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he is not entitled to any relief as per his prayer.

            In the result, present case fails.         

Hence,

                        It is

                                    Ordered:-

that the present case be and the same vide case No. 64/2019 is dismissed on contest against the opposite  parties but without any order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

Dictated and Corrected by me

President

Member                                                                                  President