Complainant Amrik Singh through the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) has prayed for the issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party no.1 to release the amount of compensation of Rs.61,450/- in his favour and Motor repair assessment cum processing sheet Ex.OP1/2, Motor final survey report dated 30.9.2014 Ex.OP1/3 be declared as wrong, false, illegal, null and void documents. Opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/-  for mental harassment and torture to him , in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Car Ford Figo Model in the year 2011 from the opposite party no.2 through its dealer opposite party no.3 bearing Registration No.PB-06N 9254 and the same was insured by opposite party no.1 Bharti AXA General Insurance Company vide policy no.FPV/SO333472/P2/10/D1P212 for the period from 14.10.2011 to midnight on 13.10.2012 and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. On 20.8.2012, he alongwith his sister’s son namely Gurbir Singh were coming from Qadian to his village by abovesaid car. The car was driven by Gurbir Singh on normal speed on his left side and at about 7.30 PM when they reached near Kahlwan Mor (Turn) on Harchowal Batala Road, suddenly a Truck was coming on wrong side from Harchowal side and for saving of lives and car he put the car on un-metalled road which was deep from metalled road resultantly, the Engine and Front Bumper of car badly damaged. On the next day i.e. on 21.8.2012, he informed the opposite party about this and after receiving the information the opposite party no.3 sent the recovery van to recover the car for necessary repair and as such by Recovery van from Amritsar, he handed over his abovesaid accidental car to opposite party no.3 for repair and paid Rs.2500/- to Amritsar Recovery Van Association. He also informed the opposite party no.1 Insurance Company regarding this accident and requested them to complete all the required formalities for claim. He has further pleaded that an amount of Rs.58,950/- was incurred upon the repair of the car and he paid the same to opposite party no.3 vide bill no.1748 dated 10.09.2012, 1924 dated 26.9.2012 and Retail Invoice dated 26.09.2012. The total expenses was comes to Rs.61,450/- i.e. Rs.58,950/- was the repair of the car and Rs.2500/- paid to the Amritsar Recovery Van Association. He submitted all the documents regarding expenses to the opposite party no.1 Insurance company and requested him to make the payment of Rs.61,450/- to him but the opposite party no.1 putting the matter on one or the other pretext and failed to release the amount of compensation. He has next pleaded that in the earlier complaint which was withdrawn by him on 22.7.2014 the insurance company alongwith his evidence submitted Motor Repair Assessing cum Processing Sheet Ex.OP1/2 and Motor Final Survey Report dated 30.9.2014 Ex.OP1/3 whereby opposite party wrongly assessed Final Claim amount of Rs.10,395/- only. In fact an amount of Rs.61,450/- was incurred upon the repair of his abovesaid car. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to Ld.Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts. The claim amount of Rs.10,395/- has already been duly paid as per Survey Report and insured Amrik Singh also gave Discharge-cum Satisfaction Voucher in this regard and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground and even otherwise there exist no relations between the parties as the payment of claim amount has already been made as per Survey Report.  On merits, it was submitted that the claim has been filed and also paid as per survey report. The complainant has filed the present complaint without any reasonable cause and to harass the opposite parties. It was further submitted that the vehicle has been duly surveyed by the surveyor and after going through the damaged vehicle he submitted his detailed reply and as per his report the liability of the insurance company is only of Rs.10,395/- only. Other allegations made in the body of the complaint have been duly denied and contested by the opposite parties. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.          Opposite party no.2 and 3 have also filed their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that the opposite party was unnecessarily been dragged in the present litigation. It was clear that the opposite party was not guilty of any deficiency in services as alleged, as such the present complaint which is false, frivolous and vexatious, deserves to be dismissed against the opposite party and special cost of Rs.10,000/- U/S 26 of the Consumer Protection Act should be granted to the opposite party; The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Forum. Actually, the complainant brought his vehicle at the premises of the opposite parties on 21.8.2012 for accidental repair, due to the accident front bumper, A.C. Tube High Pressure and A.C. Tube C/P. V-Belt, Cylinder Head, Arm Valve Rocker and belt timing, A.C.Gas were damaged, as the vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1, the same fact was intimated to them by submitting the repair estimate with them but the opposite party no.1 has given the approval of front bumper, A.C.Tube H/P A.C. Tube C/P and A.C. Gas, as such same has been initiated to the complainant and it has been informed that if he wants to get his vehicle completely repaired, he had to give the approval of the repair by submitting the advance amount but the complainant kept on dilly dallying the matter and ultimately on 16.9.2012 given his approval and paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- for initiating the repair. After receiving the said amount, the repair work was initiated and total bill of Rs.58,950/- was raised for the repair work, out of which Rs.11,300/- was paid by the opposite party no.1 and after deducting the same amount and the amount paid by the complainant as advance i.e. Rs.15,000/-, an amount of Rs.32,650/- was outstanding which was paid by the complainant on 26.09.2013 and the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. On merits, it was submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as from the recital of the head note and complaint, it was crystal clear that the complainant got the services of the opposite party no.3 at Amritsar, same was admitted by the complainant in his complaint. The complainant had earlier filed a complaint and the same was dismissed as withdraw as this Forum has no jurisdiction. Other allegations made in the body of the complaint have been duly denied and contested by the opposite parties. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence,

6.             On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shivali Sharma, authorized signatory Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents exhibited as Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence.

7.      Opposite party no.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jasbir Singh Manager of M/s.A.B.Motors Pvt.Ltd. Ex.OP-2,3/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2,3/2, Mark A to Mark C and closed the evidence.

8.      We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We find that the OP1 insurers settled the complainant’s car accident insurance claim of Rs.61,450/- vide payment to the tune of Rs.10,395/- made to the OP3 workshop as cost of repairs to the ‘direct-damage’ caused to the insured car (as a result of the reported road-side accident having occurred on 18.08.2012) and disallowed the balance as ‘consequential damage’ not covered under the terms of the related Policy. It is understood that ‘loss/damage’ caused (to the insured vehicle) consequently (even as a direct consequence) to the ‘prime’ accident transaction shall not be covered under the agreed terms of the Policy but ‘so-caused’ damage has to be necessarily proved (beyond reasonable doubt) to be the one eligible to be termed as ‘consequential’ damage (by the insurers). Here, the OP1 insurers have stated in the written statement (and affidavit Ex.OP1) that the claim has been paid as per the Surveyors’ report Ex.C11 in which Rs.10,395/-has been assessed for payment against the OP3 Repair Bills Ex.C10 of Rs.58,950/- (and towing charges Ex.C7 of Rs.2,500/-). The Surveyor in his Final Survey Report Ex.C12 has simply stated as: NOTE: The insured had driven the vehicle after accident & Engine Loss is not covered in the Policy as the loss is due to negligence. The OP3 insurers have not produced any cogent evidence on records to prove that the ‘Engine Loss’ has been caused by the complainant’s negligence. Even the requisite Surveyor’s affidavit deposing the basis of his ‘conclusion’ has not been put forth. It is evident that the accidented car was towed Ex.C7 to the OP3 workshop and that there is no evidence that the ‘car’ was driven after the accident as stated in the surveyor report. Neither, there is any evidence/ expert opinion that the ‘incurred’ engine-loss cannot incur as a result of the reported ‘accident’. Under the circumstances, the OP3 insurers have ‘arbitrarily’ settled the impugned claim for a lesser amount than what the insured was entitled to receive under the insurance policy.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to settle and pay the impugned insurance Claim (to fully cover the repairs bills of the accidented car) in terms of the related Policy to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation for causing delay & consequential harassment to him and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the full awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of filing of filing of complaint till actual payment.  

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President.     

ANNOUNCED:                                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 11, 2016.                                                                     Member.

*MK*