DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 123 of 2014
Date of filing: 27.6.2014 Date of disposal: 17.12.2015
Complainant: M/s. Basant Lal Singhi, a Partnership Firm, represented through its Partner Rajesh Singhi, having its office at Station Bazar, PO: Katwa, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 130.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented through its Branch Manager, Katwa Branch, having its office at Kachhari Road, Katwa, Burdwan, PIN – 713 130.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Ahi Bhushan De.
J U D G E M E N T
This consumer complaint is filed u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 with a prayer for an award of a sum of Rs. 13, 27,944=00 for oil spilled from a tanker due to an accident.
The brief fact of the complaint is that this complainant deals with R.B. Oil and for covering the risk of transportation of the said oil he got a Marine Open Cargo Policy from the OP i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited bearing no. 5129011/110200000003 valid from 14.7.2012 to 13.7.2013.
The complainant hired a tanker being no. WB-37B/9370 for transportation of oil from Katwa to Howrah. On 23.11.2012 the vehicle filled with R.B.Oil of 3990 kg. Again on the second day the tanker was loaded with further quantity of oil, so the total oil was loaded 11,150 kg. Thereafter the tanker met an accident and the oil was drained out to the street. An F.I.R. was lodged before the Burdwan Police Station on 27.11.2012 and also the matter was reported to the Insurance Company on 27.11.2012. After accident the police authority seized the vehicle from the road. Thereafter a Surveyor was appointed by the OP who put up some questions regarding the weighment slip submitted by the OP. This complainant answered to the questions. After necessary correspondence has been received from the Surveyor or from the end of the OP, although partners and officials of the Company visited several times in the office of the OP with a request to settle the claim for the quantity of oil lost, amounting to Rs. 10,77,944=00.
Hence the case as mentioned above.
After receiving the notice served upon the OP a written version was given by the Ld. Advocate.
Decision with reasons:
The complainant submitted at first two slips of weighment of R.B.Oil, loading on 23.11.2012 (from 15:39:29 to 18:06:01), net weight of oil being 4990 kg and loading on 24.11.2012 (from 15:46:48 to 15:47:00) net oil of R.B. Oil being loaded as 6160 kg respectively. The respondent on his written version denied the claim of the complainant. He raised question about the second weighment slip, because of the fact that 6160 kg of R.B. Oil could not be filled within such a short time of 22 seconds (38 minutes). For meeting up the objection raised by the OP, the complainant further submitted a weighment slip correcting the time for loading. But the OP found that the transaction no. of the last weighment slip is not tallying with the slip submitted earlier. (The earlier slip bears the no. 7 and the last no. bears the no. 74). OP finds the last slip as manufactured/falsified.
Secondly, the Surveyor appointed by the OP raised the same question of loading such huge amount of oil in such a short time. Total oil filled in the tanker in two days is 11145 kg, as per the invoice submitted by the complainant. The Surveyor visited the spot after 15 days. He could not find any trace of oil spilled in the spot of the accident.
Thirdly, the OP depended on the police report after it was towed from the spot of the accident. According to the police report, it was observed by them that tanker was empty.
Op further argued that the complainant neither took any photograph evidencing the spillage of oil nor took weighment of the vehicle, just after the accident, nor took any effort to minimize his loss.
OP argued further that an oil tanker consists of three compartments/chambers and draining out of oil completely from the three tankers consequently at the same time is impossible. So the total loss of oil of the tanker is quite absurd.
After perusing the documents submitted by the complainant and the OP, it is observed that the complainant submitted the relevant weighment slips could not justify his claim for the total oil spilled over as the two weighment slips for the second day of loading submitted by the complainant do not match with other. Furthermore, in the same day for loading of the same quantity of oil in the same tanker, there cannot be two transaction numbers.
Second observation by the Forum is that the police report also tells the tanker to be empty.
Thirdly, the Surveyor’s query regarding the photograph not taken by the complainant and the measurement of oil spilled over just after the accident cannot affirm the quantity oil spilled over.
And lastly, such huge quantity of oil, 11450 kgs would have caused the accident spot fully wetty which the police did not mention in their report or from any daily passerby. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove his case for lack of proper evidence in support of his claim.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 123/2014 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let plain copies of this final order/judgment be supplied to the arties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
