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.61,000/- 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.MH-25-B-7790 and it was insured with the Opposite Party for the period 09/09/2007 TO 08/09/2008 as per the document filed at page 7. It is alleged that on 09/11/2007 the aforesaid tanker was driven by Driver Bachhelal Yadav by observing traffic rules.  At that time one cyclist suddenly came in front of the above tanker and to save him the driver of the Complainant applied the breaks and it was dashed against the truck which was going ahead.  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 Latur Police Station. The Opposite Party appointed Spot Surveyor Shri. A.R. Somani who submitted his report to the Opposite Party.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party appointed Shri. H.G. Jadhav, to assess the loss of the Complainant’s vehicle. Complainant sustained damages to the tanker to the tune of Rs.61,000/-. The Complainant lodged the claim of the said amount to the Opposite Party alongwith original documents.  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.09/11/2007.  It is contended that the Complainant has though alleged that the FIR was lodged at Andheri 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.  From the documents filed by the Complainant at page 29 & 30, it appears that the Opposite Party had called upon the Complainant to produce Driving License, R.C. Book, Load Challan by letter dtd.14/06/2008 and thereafter, by letter dtd.15/12/2008 informed the Complainant in reference to the letter of the Opposite Party dtd.12/11/2008 to furnish necessary documents and also informed that as the said documents were not received, the Opposite Party presumed that the Complainant was interested in the claim and they have closed the file as ‘No Claim’ under the said letter.  It was also informed to the Complainant that the Opposite Party has solved itself from any further liabilities arising out of the claim lodged by the Complainant.  The record of the case shows that the Complainant has also not produced the copy of FIR lodged at Latur Police Station regarding the accident alleged to have been taken place. The Complainant has though produced the copy of Spot Panchanama drawn by Latur Police the same cannot be treated as the copy of FIR.  In the said panchanama there is no valuation of damages caused to the tanker owned by 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.MH-25-B-7790 on 09/11/2007.  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 09/11/2007 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.298/2010 is dismissed with no order as to cost.  

              ii.        Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.