PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE PRESIDENT
1) By this complaint the Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs.44,000/- towards damages and Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and cost of Rs.10,000/- towards this complaint.
2) According to the Complainant, it owns Tanker No.CG-10-A-6924 and it was insured with the Opposite Party for the period 11/11/2007 to 10/11/2008 as per the document filed at page 7. It is alleged that on 28/06/2008 the aforesaid tanker was driven by Driver Raju Yadav by observing traffic rules. At that time one bus was proceeding ahead. The said vehicle driver was not driving the vehicle as per traffic rules. He suddenly applied breaks to the bus and because of that the aforesaid tanker dashed against the said vehicle. It is submitted that in the said accident the front portion of the tanker was damaged. The Complainant accordingly lodged police complaint (First Information Report) at Vashi Police Station. The Complainant sustained damages to the tanker to the tune of Rs.44,000/-. The Opposite Party appointed Spot Surveyor by name Shri. Datta who submitted his report to Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Opposite Party vide letter dtd.11/11/2008 directed the Complainant to produce certain documents. Accordingly, the Complainant has complied the same. It is submitted that the Opposite Party did not communicate anything about the claim lodged by the Complainant in spite of oral enquiry by the Complainant. The Complainant issued notice through Advocate to the Opposite Party on 25/11/2009. The Opposite Party did not reply to the said notice. The Complainant has therefore, prayed for the grant of above reliefs against the Opposite Party.
3) The Opposite Party contested the claim by filing written statement. It is contended that the complaint do not disclosed any cause of action against the Opposite Party and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. According to the Opposite Party, the complaint is misconceived, bad in law, untenable, hence, it is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that the vehicle of the Complainant was damaged in the accident dtd.28/06/2008. It is contended that the Complainant has though alleged that the FIR was lodged at Vashi Police Station regarding the accident but the Complainant did not produce the copy of FIR to the Opposite Party. It is submitted that thus, the claim of the Complainant could not be processed and paid. It is contended that the Complainant had not proved any negligence or deficiency or service of the Opposite Party the complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4) The Complainant has filed the affidavit of evidence of Lakshmikant Patil, Power of Attorney of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not filed affidavit of evidence. Both the parties filed their written arguments. Both the parties filed pursis that the written argument be treated as oral argument. On the date of oral argument i.e. 10/07/2014, the Advocate for the Complainant Smt. Varsha Desai remained absent. Shri. B.S. Talwar, Advocate for the Herbert Noronha, Advocate orally argued on behalf of Opposite Party.
5) While considering the rival contentions of the parties and the claim made by the Complainant, it appears that Opposite Party has specifically come out with the defend that the Complainant did not submit the copy of FIR regarding the accident which took place of the vehicle in question and therefore, the Opposite Party could not processed the claim and not paid the compensation to the Complainant. In this regard the Complainant himself has produced the document at page 20 issued by the Opposite Party dtd.11/11/2008 wherein the Opposite Party had directed to the Complainant to furnish the following documents –
1) Driving license (of the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident) (Original & Xerox copy).
2) R.C. Book (Original & Xerox copy).
3) Fitness Certificate.
4) Rout Permit.
5) Load Challan.
6) Police FIR/Panchanama/Final Investigation Report.
The Opposite Party vide above referred letter informed the Complainant that in the event of non production of the documents within 15 days of receipt of the letter. The Opposite Party will close the claim file. It also appears that the Complainant thereafter only produced the load challan to the Opposite Party and that to on 17/03/2009 as it bears the acknowledgment to that effect of the Opposite Party on the document at page 20 filed with the Complainant. The record shows that the Complainant did not comply the requirements of the Opposite Party as stated above. The Complainant also did not produce the copy of FIR in this complaint before the Forum to prove that the accident as alleged had taken place and the damages were caused to the Tanker No.CG-10-A-6924 on 28/06/2008. In view of the aforesaid facts we hold that as the Complainant has failed to comply the required compliance by the Opposite Party and did not prove that the tanker in question met with an accident on 28/06/2008 for which the Complainant had lodged the complaint/FIR to the concerned police station. We therefore, hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there was /is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is liable to pay damages as well compensation and cost of this proceeding as claimed in this complaint. In the result we pass the following order –
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.300/2010 is dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
