3.      On being put to notice, the O.Ps. filed a joint written version taking preliminary objections; that the complainant had manipulated the claim without any accident, in order to overhaul repair of the vehicle in question i.e. its cabin & lower body; that the claim was duly processed and the same was repudiated vide letter dated 10.5.2014 on the ground of manipulation; that in compliance of the order passed by this Forum in the earlier complaint bearing CC No.127 of 2014 filed by the complainant, the claim was duly considered and the competent authority keeping in view the survey report dated 15.7.2015 has rejected the claim and the complainant was informed about the same vide letter dated 17.7.2015, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps. and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has obtained one insurance policy bearing No.85410661 covering the vehicle TATA 2515 with registration No.PB-13AF-2745 w.e.f. 14.10.2013 to 13.10.2014. It is further stated that the complainant intimated one claim with regard to the accident of vehicle in question on 27.10.2013. Sh.K.P.S.Oberoi, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed, who submitted the report dated 30.3.2014 stating that the vehicle was surveyed on 29.10.2013 at Patran. The first accident of the vehicle in question was occurred on 20.10.2013 i.e. after six days of the issuance of the cover note (on Sunam to Kohria road) when the speedometer reading of the vehicle was shown as 501532 Kms but the insured withdrawn the said claim having written to the surveyor Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal that he was not interested to take the claim. The 2nd accident of the vehicle occurred on 27.10.2013 near Zirakpur . The reading of the speedometer of the vehicle in question was again shown as 501532 Kms. The surveyor reported that the complainant has manipulated the claim in order to overhaul the repair of the vehicle in question i.e. cabin and lower body from the Ops without any accident. It is further stated that the distance between Zirakpur and Sunam is 120 Kms but KMs reading of the vehicle was the same and as such the surveyor recommended for closure of the file as NO CLAIM and as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 10.5.2014 on the ground of manipulation of the claim. The filing of the earlier complaint No.CC14/187 and the decision of the same by this Forum on 12.2.2015  having directed the Ops ‘for acceptance /rejection of the claim of the complainant’ is  also admitted by the Ops. It is submitted by the Ops that in compliance  of the order passed by the Forum, the Ops duly considered the claim of the complainant and the competent authority in view the survey report dated 15.7.2015 rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 17.7.2015.After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, the Ops prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove  the case, the learned counsel for the complainant  tendered in evidence Ex.CA, the sworn affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of order dated 12.2.2015, Ex.C2 copy of survey report dated 15.7.2015, Ex.C3 copy of letter dated 17.7.2015, Ex.C4 copy of letter dated 10.5.2014, Ex.C5 copy of survey report dated 30.3.2014, Ex.C6 copy of survey report/inspection, Ex.C7 copy of policy, Ex.C8 copy of legal notice, Ex.C9 copy of receipt, Ex.C10 copy of RTI application alongwith postal order for Rs.50/-, Ex.C11 copy of application dated 11.7.2014,Ex.C12 copy of order dated 12.8.2015 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sanket Gupta, Vice President Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Ex.OP1, copy of Private & Confidential Final Survey report, Ex.OP2 copy of letter dated 17.7.2015, Ex.OP3 copy of letter dated 10.5.2014, Ex.OP4 copy of Motor Final Survey Report, Ex.OP5 copy of Motor Final Survey Report  dated 02.Nov.2013, Ex.OP6 copy of policy, Ex.OP7 copy of Motor Final Survey report dated 07-Nov.2013 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant contended that earlier the complaint filed by the complainant was disposed of by this Hon’ble Forum vide its order dated 12.2.2015 with a direction to the Ops to access the loss within 20 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order and in case the loss is assessed in favour of the complainant, the Ops shall make the payment thereof with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 10.5.2014.The Ops shall pass a detailed order in accepting/rejecting the claim of the  complainant  and furnish a copy  thereof alongwith the report of the surveyor. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-, which is inclusive of the amount of compensation on account of harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant. Since the compliance of the said order  was not made by the ops, therefore, an execution application was filed by the complainant and during the pendency of said application, the Ops filed fresh repudiation letter dated 17.7.2015, Ex.C3/OP2, on the basis of fresh report dated 15.7.2015,Ex.C2/Ex.OP1 submitted by the surveyor Sh.K.P.S.Oberoi. The said surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.39750/- which is very meager and was wrongly assessed by the said surveyor. He further contended that  in the spot survey report Ex.C6/OP5,  it is categorically mentioned that the vehicle in question had met with an accident on 27.10.2013 at Zirakpur. It is wrongly stated in the final report dated 15.7.2015 that the complainant has manipulated the claim because to corroborate the said fact the Ops have not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence. The said survey report is made merely on conjectures and surmises.

7.                The learned counsel for the Ops vehemently argued that the surveyor has assessed the loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy, on the basis of the estimate of repair submitted by the complainant with the Ops. The said surveyor has reported that  the complainant has manipulated the claim, in order to get his vehicle overhauled at the cost of the insurance company there being no accident. As per the surveyor the first accident of the vehicle occurred on 20.10.2013 at Sunam and the speedometer was showing 501532 Kms and the 2^nd accident occurred on 27.10.2013 near Zirakpur but the speedometer was showing the same reading as such the said  surveyor recommended for the closure of the claim as “NO CLAIM” and on the basis of the said report, the Ops have rightly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 17.7.2015,Ex.C3/OP2.

8.                After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties now the question for consideration before us is as to whether the  vehicle in question  met with an accident on 26.10.2013 within the area of Zirakpur or not?

9.                It may be stated that after the receipt of intimation regarding accident of the vehicle in question, the Ops deputed a surveyor, who conducted the spot survey and submitted his report Ex.C6/OP5. From the perusal of the said report, it is apparent that in the column meant for spot of the accident it is written Zirakpur - Patiala road near Nabha Gurudwara”. From the said report it is crystal clear that the accident took place at Zirakpur. Therefore, the plea of the Ops that the complainant has manipulated the claim in order to get his vehicle overhauled at the expenses of the insurance company there being no accident gets falsified. As per the Ops, the first accident of the vehicle in question occurred on 20.10.2013 at Sunam i.e after six days of the issuance of the cover note and the reading of the speedometer was shown as 501532 KMs. The second accident was occurred on 27.10.2013 near Zirakpur and the speedometer was showing the same reading as 501532 Kms. but in the absence of any iota of evidence this plea of the Ops is not tenable. Taking all these facts and circumstances in to consideration we are of the view that the complainant was entitled to get the claim amount.

10.              The next question for consideration before us is that what should be the quantum of claim?

                   From the perusal of final survey report dated 15.7.2015 Ex.C2/ OP1 , it is apparent that in the column meant for  “assessment details”,  the surveyor has described the estimated details given by the complainant as well as the details of the amount assessed by him. The said surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.39750/-after making necessary deductions as per the terms and conditions of the policy. No doubt the complainant has alleged that the surveyor has wrongly assessed the claim but he has not pointed out where the surveyor has gone wrong in assessing the loss. As such, we have no cogent reason to disagree with the loss assessed by the surveyor. Since the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.39750/- rounded of Rs.40,000/-, therefore, the Ops were  liable to pay the same  but the Ops by not paying the said amount  have committed  deficiency of service ,which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the Ops are not only liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor but also liable to pay compensation on account of the   mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant along with litigation expenses.

11.              In view of the aforesaid discussion,  the complaint is allowed partly and the O.Ps. are directed in the following manner:-

                   i)       To pay  Rs.40,000/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from

                             the date of repudiation i.e. 17.7.2015 till realization;

                   ii)      To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation,

                   iii)     To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation costs.

                             The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the above said directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the O.Ps. shall pay interest @12% per annum on the awarded amount besides litigation costs.

12.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Pronounced                                                      NEENA SANDHU

                                                                                  PRESIDENT

DATED: 3.8.2016

                                                                             NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                                    MEMBER