1. The fact of the case of complainant is that for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, he purchased a ten wheeler second hand truck bearing Regd. No. AP-31-X-3065, model no. TATA 2B15 C3Ex, Engine No. 40D62327518 and Chassis No. 426021EV2719279 from the O.P. No. 4 on July 2012 and transferred the ownership in his name and prior to sale transaction of alleged vehicle, the O.P. No.4 had insured the vehicle vide policy no. 13330/3113/157617 valid from 24.07.2012 to 23.07.2013.  It is alleged that on 22.07.2013 at 12.30 P.M., the vehicle was met with an accident near Shighanpur under P.S. Keskal, Dist. Kanker in Chhatishgarh State and as per his intimation, the O.P. No. 1 deputed their surveyor / loss assessor to the spot, who inspected the vehicle and advised the complainant to lift his vehicle to the garage and submit the final bills and apply to the insurance company in proper format.  It is alleged that the complainant on 28.09.2013 produced the relevant bills for Rs. 3,51,522/- and lodged the insurance claim vide claim no. 142082, but the insurance company did not pay any heed.  Further it is alleged on 15.11.2013 the O.P. No.4 received a cheque for Rs. 1,05,675/- from the insurance company, who after encash the same, paid the amount to the complainant.  The allegations of complainant is that he incurred heavy expenses of Rs. 3,51,522/- whereas the insurance company paid only Rs. 1,05,675/-, thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1, 2 & 3, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs. 3,51,522/- with interest 18% p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. The O.P. No.1 & 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed their joint counter versions admitting the issuance of alleged insurance policy vide no. 10003/31/13/157617 against the alleged vehicle which is valid from 24.07.2012 to 23.07.2013 but denied the other allegations of complainant contending that immediate after receipt the intimation from the complainant, they have deputed their authorized surveyor who after deducting the depreciation, has assessed the loss for Rs. 1,05,675/- and the said amount was paid to the O.P.No.4 who received the same without any objection, thus denying their further liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
3. The O.P.No.3 appeared in this case through their Ld. Counsel, but did not choose to file their counter versions, inspite of several opportunities were given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them. 

4. The O.P. No.4 neither appeared in this case nor filed her counter versions throughout the proceeding.

5. Parties have filed certain documents in support of the submissions.  Heard from the parties present.  Perused the record and material documents available therein. 

6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one ten wheeler second hand truck bearing Regd. No. AP-31-X-3065, model no. TATA 2B15 C3Ex, Engine No. 40D62327518 and Chassis No. 426021EV2719279 from the O.P. No. 4 on July 2012 and transferred the ownership in his name.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  It is also documentary evidence that prior to sale transaction of alleged vehicle, the O.P. No.4 had insured the alleged vehicle with the O.P.No.1 vide policy no. 13330/3113/157617 which is valid from 24.07.2012 to 23.07.2013.  Complainant also filed document to that effect.  It is also an admitted that the alleged vehicle met with an accident on 22.07.2013 at 12.30 P.M. and as per his intimation, the O.P. No. 1 deputed their surveyor / loss assessor to the spot, who inspected the vehicle and advised the complainant to lift his vehicle to the garage and submit the final bills and apply to the insurance company in proper format, as such the complainant on 28.09.2013 produced the relevant bills for Rs.3,51,522/- and lodged the insurance claim vide claim no. 142082, but the O.P. No.1 & 2 on 15.11.2013 paid acheque amount to the O.P. No.4 for Rs. 1,05,675/-.Complainant also filed document to that effect.The allegation of complainant is that he incurred heavy expenses of Rs. 3,51,522/- whereas the O.P – insurance company paid only Rs. 1,05,675/- to the O.P. No.4.Whereas the contentions of O.P. – insurance company is that immediate after receipt of the intimation from the complainant, they have deputed their authorized surveyor / loss assessor to conduct the survey and to assess the loss occurred to the alleged vehicle, who after making depreciation assessed the loss to an amount of Rs. 1,05,675/- and the said amount was paid to the O.P.No.4 who insured the alleged vehicle.O.P.- insurance company filed document to that effect and thus denying their liability.

7. During the hearing, the A/R for O.P. – insurance company argued that though the complainant has mentioned date of accident as 22.07.2013 but actually the accident took place on 20.07.2013 and they received the intimation towards accident on 21.07.2013 and spot survey was conducted on 22.07.2013 and accordingly they prepared the final survey report as on 16.08.2013 after receipt the entire bills from the complainant and prepared the claim settlement check list on 29.08.2013, as such there is no delay at their hand.  From the above submissions, we have carefully gone through the documents filed by the A/R for O.P – insurance company and ascertained that the O.P. – insurance company have made inspection about the accident and deputed their surveyor in time and prepared the final survey within one month and disbursed the loss assessed amount to the actual insured, as such we feel, the insurance company have complied all their duties and responsibilities within time limit.

8. Now coming to the point of entitlement of balance amount as claimed by the complainant, we have perused the record and documents filed by the parties and ascertained that alleged vehicle was met with an accident on 12.07.2013 at 12.30 A.M.during the valid period of policy i.e. from 24.07.2012 to 23.07.2013.The insurance company deputed their surveyor / loss assessor, who conducted the spot survey on 20.07.2013 and final survey was conducted on 22.07.2013 at the garage of Haryana Motors Body, Raipur.So, in our view, there is no delay occurred with the O.P. – insurance company towards conducting the survey and preparing the final survey report.Further the O.P. – insurance company filed the entire survey report and documents related to loss assess, which is certified by the claim officer Sri Pradeep Singh on dated 29.08.2013, and the said documents were never been challenged by the complainant. In this connection, we have fortified with the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it is held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of O.P. unchallenged by the complainant.” Further catena of verdicts of higher Forums say that survey report is having vital importance in it.Hence considering the above documentary evidences and verdicts of Higher Forum, we are not inclined to accept the versions of the complainant regarding entitlement of balance amount as claimed by him by setting aside the survey report.Hence this order.

ORDER

        Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the versions of complainant and dismiss the case having no merits.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2^nd day of February, 2019.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.