The accused is represented by his learned counsel On the last date, I have heard the part of the argument so placed by the learned counsel representing the complainant. The Opp. Parties remained absent and they were set exparte vide earlier order.

I have very attentively and carefully gone through the entire case record. In this case, the complainant is one Dulal Ch. Ghosh, S/o late Jagat Ch. Ghosh of village Gualtuli, P.S. Goalpara. He seeks relief for deficiency of service expected to be provided by the Opp. Parties, namely Opp. Party No.1 ICCI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Mayur Garden, 4th Floor, ABC Bus Stop, G.S. Road, Guwahati, and Opp. Party No. 2, the Officer Incharge, Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai.

The case of the complainant is that he purchased Tata Indica (Diesel) vehicle No.ML-07/A-1174 under hire purchase scheme and got it insured under Opp. Party No. 1 on 2.12.2006. Thereafter, as per the insurance coverage and the provision of the Motor Insurance under Cover No.PD 3863860 certificate cum policy No.3001/50B2487/00/000 and was on 10.12.2006. The said policy for the aforementioned was certified for insurance coverage from 2.12.2006 to 1.12.2007 midnight. Unfortunately, the said car met with an on 8.12.2006 and suffered severe damage rendering the be not fit for driving. The matter was immediately by the complainant to Opp. Party No.1 on 16.12.2006 on 22.12.2006 by post and on 8.1.2007 by registered last correspondent was acknowledged by the opp party. The complainant too wrote a letter addressed to Manager, Tata Motors Limited through Ms. Ghosh Brothers automobiles on 26.12.2006 by courier post. After the said accident, the complainant somehow to the car to Guwahati for repairing purpose and to find out its actual damage. The inspecting authority of the Opp. Party visited the workshop at Ghosh Brothers Automobiles, the authorized workshop of Tata Motors at Guwahati on 18.12.2006, took photographs of the damaged car and finally worked out an estimate of the cost required to repair the car amounting to Rs.56,047/-. That as per the provisions of the Motor Insurance Package Private Car (Policy wordings) of the Opp. Party, after any accident of the insured car, the matter is to be informed immediately fo order to repair the car which is mandatory in nature The complainant, after the said accident informed the Opp. Parties and sought their permission to repair the car. But, the opp Party did not respond positively nor attended to it for the repair of the said car for which the complainant had to detain his car for long period in the workshop of Mis Ghosh Brothers Automobiles, Guwahati for which he had to bear the garage charges for the detained period That the said car was purchased by the complainant for his personal business and due to non-receipt of service from the opp. Parties, the complainant had to incur loses in respect of his private business and had to bear the detained charges of the said car at the workshop for about 55 days When no option was left, the complainant took some personal loan and repaired the car to make it roadable by expending about Rs 26,891/. at the said automobile workshop of M/s Ghosh Brothers at Guwahati. Finally, on 16.1.2007, the Opp. Parties addressed a letter to the complainant repudiating the claim on the ground of infringement of terms and conditions of the policy as according to the Opp. Party, it was not registered at the time of the accident even though insured Since nothing was mentioned in the policy nor any cover note that the registration of the car is compulsory and it was no intimated to the complainant during the subsistence of the insurance of the car, the decision of the Opp. Parties for not entertaining the claim for repair and for meeting the repair cost and ancillary expenses was arbitrary and unlawful as the cover note and the insurance policy was issued only on Chasis No.600140 LTZPL6909 and Engine No 4751 DI 05LTZPA 5357. The claimant claims that it was an accident pure and simple and cannot be attributed with an ill motive. Subsequently on being satisfied with the decision of the Opp. Party, the claimant instructed the engaged lawyer to take the legal step and in pursuance of that, lawyer's notices were issued and served upon the Opp. Party No. 1 & 2, Nevertheless, no positive response was forthcoming on this issue. It is claimed that the complainant is a consumer of the said insurance company under the provision of section e) of the Consumer Protection Act and is entitled to get relief against the opp. Party for the loss and damages suffered at the time of the aforementioned accident that was according to the complainant was unintentional. The complainant prays for the relief of claimed amount of Rs 56,4700/-. 

On the basis of service of its report for the purpose of repairing the damaged car, business losses for 55 days Rs.100/- per day amounting to Rs.5,500/- as, according to the complainant, he could not attend his business using the said car due to non-sanction of the required fund for the immediate repairing of the damaged car which could not be used during that period. Further, he seeks interest on the claimed amount 6% from the date of the accident till final payment.