Jasvir Singh and another complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay the claim of Rs.1,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum since it became due till realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. The complainants averred in their complaint that the complainants are the owners of the vehicle make Mahindra and Mahindra Utility engine No. 33513 chassis No. 24998 and registration No. PB 05 H 9529. This vehicle was fully insured by the complainants with the opposite parties vide cover note No. GB 731545 valid from 10/1/2006 to 9/1/2007 after paying the premium of Rs.6712/-. This cover note was issued by the opposite party No. 3 at Faridkot and the premium was also paid at Faridkot. So the complainants are the consumers of the opposite parties. This vehicle hit a eucalyptus tree at about 10-30 PM on 17/4/2006 when the complainant No. 1 was driving the vehicle tried to avoid a rashly driven truck. The accident took place near village Maan Singhwala on Sadiq-Muktsar road. Many parts of the vehicle including radiator were badly damaged. They informed the opposite parties next morning about the accident and officials of the opposite parties visited the spot and took photographs of the vehicle. Then the vehicle was taken to City Motors Ferozepur Road, Faridkot and vehicle was checked in the presence of the surveyor of the opposite parties who also took photographs of the damaged vehicle in workshop. The vehicle was repaired in City Motors, Faridkot and damaged part were changed. The chassis was repaired at Teja Singh Market, Moga as there is no mechanic and opratus to set chassis at Faridkot. After that the complainants submitted the claim alongwith all the bills of spare parts and repair charges to the opposite parties and completed all other formalities required by the opposite parties. The surveyor estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- which is slightly less than the actual loss of the vehicle. Since then the complainants visited the opposite parties many times but each time the opposite parties put off the complainants on one pretext or the other and have not paid a single paisa out of the claim amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. It is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants have to suffer harassment, mental agony and inconvenience due to deficiency in service of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10-11-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. B.B.Khurana Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainants are not the consumer of the opposite parties as the vehicle insured with the opposite parties was having used for commercial purpose. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties i.e. Mohindra and Mohindra Financial Services Ltd. It is mandatory that in case of accident of the insured vehicle the claimant must immediately report the cause, time, date and exact place of occurrence of accident so that insurer may sent surveyor to physically and personally check and take stock of situation. But the complainant has not observed this mandatory condition. The insured vehicle was being plied without valid permit and without paying of road tax and in violation of insurance companies terms and conditions. There is no FIR lodged with the concerned police station which is a mandatory condition whenever the alleged insured is to raise claim from the insurance company. By not lodging an FIR the claim of the complainants seems to be false and doubtful. Moreover what confirms the doubts and suspicions about the alleged accident is that as per story of the claimant the driver of the damaged vehicle did not get even a single scratch / injury on his body despite getting his vehicle badly damaged. The claimant has not produced on record the medical report which means no alleged accident took place. The claimant is raising the claim on the basis of cover note only and has failed to produce policy certificate. As per this cover note it is valid for only 60 days from the date of issue. It is also mentioned on the cover note that it is invalid if issued after 31/12/2005 whereas the alleged policy has been issued on 10/1/2006. On merits the opposite parties submitted that the vehicle has been hypothecated by the Mohindra and Mohindra Financial Services ltd but they have not been impleaded as necessary party. Until and unless the complainants does not produce on record the alleged policy number, date of commencement and expiry date official endorsement of the insurer that policy has not been terminated by the insurer till then the claimants cannot be considered as the consumer of the opposite parties. As per story of the complainants the vehicle hit a tree on 17/4/2006 at about 10.30 P.M. but as per spot verification the vehicle did not hit any tree nor there was any truck. The time of alleged accident was 2.00 A.M. and not 10.30 P.M. Some questions are still unanswered and create a number of doubt and suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim that the claimant has not quoted the number of alleged truck which caused the accident. It the alleged truck was going or coming at high speed that the claimant/driver of the vehicle must stopped his vehicle at a safe distance but he could not stop his own vehicle as his own vehicle was being driven at dangerously high speed which caused the alleged accident. The statement of alleged truck driver not recorded. The complaint is silent over the question who were other occupants of the vehicle and how many of them got injuries or if it was loaded /over loaded with goods what happened to the loaded material. The alleged checking of the vehicle at City Motors, Faridkot and then at Moga which are not authorized service centre of the company is false and fake. The complainants have failed to furnish all the required legal formalities like FIR, Medical Report. The alleged surveyor report is denied till place on record. Opposite parties are at liberty to accept or reject the surveyor's report or appoint 2nd surveyor if they feel necessary. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of cover note Ex.C-2, copy of Registration Cover Ex.C-3, copy of driving license of complainant Jasvir Singh Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 22/4/2006 Ex.C-5, copy of bill dated 9/5/2006 Ex.C-6, copy of bill dated 28/4/2006 Ex.C-7, copy of bill dated 9/5/2006 Ex.C-8, copy of bill dated 3/5/2006 Ex.C-9, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-10 and closed their evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties filed the affidavit of Sat Parkash Authorized Signatory, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Chandigarh but not tendered this affidavit and no document tendered in their evidence and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainants have entitled to the claim on account of insurance policy cover note dated 10/1/2006 to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of damage of insured vehicle Mahindra and Mahindra Utility PB-05-H-9529 on 17/4/2006. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that no accident took place at 10.30 P.M. on 17/4/2006, rather accident took place on 17/4/2006 at 2.00 A.M. Complainants have not submitted required documents to the insurance company. Actually no accident took place as occupants of the vehicle must have received injuries in a such like fast moving vehicle accident. No MLR has been produced by the complainant. It was negligence of the complainant himself which might have caused accident. There is no witness of the accident. It is created story that the vehicle hit a euclypt tree. <br /> 10. Though the opposite parties have denied accident of the vehicle and driving of the vehicle by the complainant but from the fact of pleadings of the opposite parties that time of alleged accident was 2.00 AM and not 10.30 PM.<br /> 11. Complainants have submitted all the documents of claim to the opposite parties. Even surveyor inspected the spot. He took photographs as submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant but the opposite parties have not paid insurance amount. <br /> 12. It appears that there is simple denial of the opposite parties with regard to accident and driving of the vehicle by an authorized person. It is not the fact that in all the cases of accident driver must receive the injuries. Since the opposite parties have failed to prove as to how many persons were occupying the vehicle at the time of accident so the version of the complainant to the effect that the complainant was driving the vehicle appears to be genuine and valid. Since no other person has been proved to have been used the vehicle for transportation as passengers so it is held that complainants have not used the vehicle for commercial purpose. <br /> 13. The insurance cover note Ex.C-2 dated 10/1/2006 makes out that vehicle involved in the accident was insured with regard to the accident from 10/1/2006 to 9/1/2007 as the complainant has paid the premium of the insurance to the tune of Rs. 6712/- to the opposite parties. As per registration certificate Ex.C-3 Jasvir Singh is the owner of the vehicle. Driving license Ex.C-4 shows that Jasvir Singh was having valid driving license from 12/3/2004 to 11/3/2007. The opposite parties have withheld evidence with regard to report of surveyor and repairs of the vehicle. The complainants have placed on the file some photocopies of the bills original of which is stated to have been handed over by the complainant to the opposite parties for payment of the claim. From the bills Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9 made out that the complainants have spent sufficient money for repair of the vehicle. He has spent Rs.54,800/- so the opposite parties having not paid insurance amount to the complainants on account of repair of his vehicle have made their services deficient towards the complainant. <br /> 14. Since the opposite parties have failed to prove that complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose so Sri Mohan Motors & Anr. Versus R.P.Sharma reported in 11 (2006) Consumer Protection Judgments-449 relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is not helpful to them in any manner. So also United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Dharam Raj reported in 2005 (3) Consumer Law Today-401 relied upon by the opposite parties is not helpful to them. Both these authorities are having different facts and circumstances then that of the case in hand. <br /> 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainants is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to make payment of Rs.54,800/- as insurance amount, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.1000/- as costs of the complaint in total Rs.70,800/- to the complainants within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.70,800/- from the date of the decision of the complaint till realization of the amount. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 12/9/2007