1. The fact of the case of Complainant is that he insured his vehicle Renault KWID – 1.0 RXT bearing Regd. No. OD-30-B-2196 with the Opp. Party No. 2 through the O.P. No. 1 vide policy no. 2311-2025-3443-7600000 valid from 28.11.2018 to 27.11.2019 with OD premium of Rs. 8,267/- with an assurance to cover each and every parts of the vehicle on damage.  The allegations of complainant is that on 13.10.2019, his vehicle met with an accident as a result of which the chamber part of the alleged vehicle got damaged and oil was leaked out, hence he contacted with O.P. No. 1 who suggested to contact with O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 registered the claim vide no. C230019305086 dated 18.10.2019 and as per their direction, complainant shifted the alleged vehicle to an authorised service center where the bill no. 209 dated 19.11.2019 was raised for Rs. 73,720/- which was submitted to the surveyor of the O.P. No. 2, but the concerned surveyor demanded Rs. 5,000/- for early settlement to which, the complainant could not paid.Due to non settlement of insurance claim, the complainant could not deposited his installment dues in time and the O.Ps with one pretext or the other, delaying to settle the insurance claim.Further allegations of complainant is that due to his disc extension in L4L5 in spinal cord, he used the alleged vehicle for his regular use and due to non settlement of insurance claim, he could not use the vehicle and suffers a lot.Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opp. Parties, he filed this case claiming the claimed amount of Rs. 73,270/- with 12% interest alongwith Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. O.P. No. 1 appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed counter admitting that the complainant availed the insurance service of O.P. No.2 through them, but denied the allegations contending that since there is no cause of action made out against them, and the allegations are only made against the O.P. No.2, as such they have no role to play in it.  Further they have contended that since the O.P. No.1 involves in banking transaction, the complainant should lodge his claim before the O.P. No.2, as the subject matter of the case is only related to insurance claim, thus with other contentions, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed their counter version admitting the issuance of insurance policy against the alleged vehicle vide policy no. 2311202534437600000 valid from 28.11.2018 to 27.11.2019 and accident of the alleged vehicle occurred on 13.10.2019 and also survey made by their surveyor but denied the facts of contending that the oil pan on being hit by a stone, the engine seized subsequently since the complainant had continued to drive the vehicle even after detecting that a stone had hit the oil pan, and have paid Rs. 4,200/- as per their survey report and with other contentions, showing no liabilities they prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Parties have filed certain documents in support of their submissions.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

5. It is an admitted fact that on 13.10.2019 the alleged vehicle met with an accident which was validly insured with the O.P. vide policy no. 2311202534437600000 from 28.11.2018 to 27.11.2019 and the O.P. No.2 paid Rs. 4,200/- to the complainant against the alleged accident of the vehicle as per the survey report made by their surveyor.  The allegation of complainant is that the total estimate towards repair of the alleged vehicle is made for Rs. 73,720/-, but the O.P. No.2 paid only Rs. 4,200/-.  Whereas the contentions of O.P. No.2 is that as per the survey report they have paid the aforesaid amount to the complainant. Now the question arose to decide that :

1. Whether the vehicle was run immediate after the accident occurred inspite of oil was drained out due to the accident ?

2. Whether the payment made by the O.P. No.2 is justified ?

6. Regarding first point, we have gone through the documents filed by the parties. It is ascertained that complainant has filed one estimate document issued by one M/s Shiva Traders which shows the kilometer reading of vehicle at the time of accident is 60295 and also filed another document vide invoice no. 209 dated 19.11.2019 for Rs. 73,720/- towards repair of the alleged vehicle.  Whereas the O.P filed the survey report which does not disclosed the kilometer reading of the alleged vehicle at the time of accident.  In our view, if the engine is seized immediate running after the oil was drained out, then the survey report must show the specific report regarding kilometer running of the vehicle after the accident and running after how much kilometer, the engine will be seized.  Further it is ascertained that no technical report regarding seizing of engine is filed by the O.P. to prove their submissions regarding running of vehicle after the oil was drained out.   Hence we feel, the survey was not properly carried out by the surveyor and without any proper evidence, it cannot be hold that due to negligence of complainant engine of alleged vehicle was seized.  We feel, immediate after the accident occurred, the vehicle was lying stood on the spot, from where the alleged vehicle was shifted to the concerned garage.  Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.

7. Regarding second point, we feel since the survey report was not carried out properly, as such the assessment made by the surveyor is not justified.  Hence, as per our view, the complainant is entitled the estimated value submitted by him to the O.P. No.2.  Further it is ascertained that the O.P. No.2 has paid only Rs. 4,200/- to the complainant, as such the complainant entitled further Rs. 69,520/- (Rs. 73,720/-  -  Rs. 4,200/-) from the O.P. No.2. 
    
8. Further as per submissions of the complainant and medical documents filed by him, it is ascertained that due to improper service of O.P. he could not move frequently due to his physical problems and suffered physical pain.  In our view, due to such service of the O.P. No.2, complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which he is entitled compensation and costs.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part. The O.P. No. 2 being the insurer of the alleged vehicle is herewith directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 69,520/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.  All the directions should be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the balance amount of Rs. 69,520/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of insurance claim dated 18.10.2019 till payment. 

Since no specific allegations made against the O.P. No. 1, no order against them.

        Pronounced the order in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of December, 2020.        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.