::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.56/2017.
Date of filing: 01.09.2017.
Date of disposal: 23.05.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Raghunath Patil S/o Wamanrao Patil,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o SBH Colony Near KEB Bidar-585401.
(By P.M.Deshpande., Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
1st floor, Shetkar building,
Near Ganesh Maidan, Bidar-585401.
2) Ratankumar S/o Ramchandra Nandigowli,
Age: Major, Occ: Mechanic
R/o C/o Sai engineering Mechanic work,
Near Mayura Hotel, Opp: to NEKRTC, Bidar.
(By. R.1. Sri. Vaijinath Patil Adv., &
R.2.Exparte.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainant has approached this forum by filing a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging as hereunder.
2. That, the complainant an agriculturist by profession and resident of Bidar was owning Maruthi OMNI Vehicle bearing No.KA-38M-1079 and had obtained a package Insurance from the opponent No.1 bearing No.2406023115P102169898, date of validity from 06-05-2015 to 05-05-2016. The I.D.V. was Rs.1,20,000/-. The vehicle developing some mechanical problems was given to O.P.No.2, a car Mechanic running a Garage named ‘Sai Mechanical works’ opp. Bus Stand, Bidar on 24.10.2015. He was later told by the O.P.No.2 that, on 26.10.2015 there was a fire accident due to short circuit and the garage as well as vehicles kept therein were fully burnt.
3. It is further avered that, C.C.No.93/2015 filed before this forum by O.P.No.2 was though resulted in an award, no compensation for the burnt vehicles was ever assessed since R.C. books, policy particulars of those were not furnished. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint, claiming a global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with alleged supporting documents, since his vehicle was burnt in the garage of theO.P.No.2.
4. On non appearance inspite of receipt of notice the O.P.No.2 was placed exparte on 18.11.2017. Only the O.P.No.1 has participated in the case and has filed elaborate versions in which all the allegations of the complainant have been denied. It is further claimed that the garage owner has never reported to the jurisdictional police about burning of the captioned Maruti van. The complainant had never reported the burning of the van to the Insurer immediately after the fire accident and the complainant should rather seek compensation from GESCOM, Bidar. The O.P.No.1 further avers that, there is no proof about the burning of the car and mere production of R.C. book does not entitle the complainant for compensation. The entrustment of the motor vehicle to the O.P.No.2 itself is denied, so also it is avered that, the complaint is inordinately delayed an afterthought to derive undue gain claiming an electrical fire accident. The O.P.No.1 submits to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. Both sides have filed evidence affidavits, have been heard in length and only the complainant has submitted documents listed at the end of this order.
6. Basing on the contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration.
- Does the complainant prove deficiency of service in the part of the O.P.s?
- What orders?
7. Our answers to points are as following:-
- In the negative.
- Does not survive for consideration owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
8. Point (a): Prima facie, the complainant has not led any proof establishing the fact that, the captioned vehicle was ever entrusted, to the O.P.No.2 for repair and was kept in the laters garage. A certified copy of the award in C.C.No.93/2015 has been filed by the complainant as Annexure-C. In the same award, even though there is a telltale reference of burning of motor vehicles Maruti 800, Wagon R, Zen, Maruti OMNI ad scooter in Para-3 of the order, no number of the vehicles was ever mentioned and the Forum has not entertained any claim of compensation on those accounts. Thereby, compensation was awarded towards the burning of the workshop, accessories and other stored materials, basing on the evidences led by the feuding parties. In the instant case but, the complainant has not led any evidence substantiating his entrustment of the vehicle to theO.P.No.2 or its destruction by any tangible proof and hence we answer the point in negative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
- The case is dismissed as not proven.
- There would be no order as to cost or otherwise.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 23rd day of May 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure. A- Insurance certificate.(copy).
- Annexure. B– R.C. book (copy).
- Annexure. C– Certified copy of award in C.C.No.93/2015.
- Annexure. D—AADHAR CARD (copy).
Document produced by the Opponents.
-Nil-
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Ragunath Patil S/o Waman Rao Patil (complainant).
Opponent No.1
- R.W.1- Sri. R.S. Gugwad, Divisional Manager of O.P.No.1.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
