The titled complainant Satwinder Singh Aadhar Ex.C3, aggrieved at 'non-settlement' of his car-accident total-loss insurance-claim by the opposite party 1 & 2 insurers, pertaining to the road-accident of his insured Car Nissan Sunny Model 2012 for an IDV of Rs.3.55 Lac Ex.C2 R.C. # PB-06-Q-4006 Ex.C1; has filed the present complaint against the OP insurers their agent at Batala the OP3 and the OP4 Surveyor. Somehow, the insured Car while being driven by the complainant D.L. Ex.C4 to Panipat on 13.11.2029 got damaged near Karnal in a road-side accident; the OP insurers were duly intimated and the damaged Car was towed to M/s Dada Motor Garage, Jalandhar; at the instance of the OP insurers.

2.       In the meantime, the OP insurers deputed their Surveyor (the OP4) who examined the damaged Car and declared it to be a total-loss that entitled the complainant to receive the full IDV @ Rs.3.55 Lac. Further, the complainant alleges that the OP insurers instead of settling the claim @ Policy IDV being total-loss damage kept on deferring the resolve on one count or the other and even after having been in receipt of legal notice Ex.C5 as was duly served upon them; and thus prompted the present complaint seeking settlement of the impugned claim @ IDV of Rs.3.55 Lac with interest @ 18% PA from date of accident and Rs.80,000/- Parking charges at Dada's Garage (Jalandhar) plus Rs.10,500/- as towing charges paid from Karnal to Jalandhar; besides compensation @ Rs.40,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges, in the interest of justice. The complaint is duly supported by the complainant's affidavit Ex.CW1/A and other exhibits Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, as above and also by rejoinders and written arguments.         

3.       The titled opposite party insurers (the OP1&2 insurers) appeared in compliance to the commission’s summons/notice through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as:

4.       The present complaint is not maintainable as the OP insurers have settled Ex.OP1 the said total-loss claim on 21.01.2020 @ Rs.2.74 Lac net of salvage; details vide Ex.OP2 reminder dated 31.01.2020 i.e. at IDV of Rs.3.55 Lac minus Rs.80,000/- {assessed salvage value (car accident-salvage)} minus Rs.1,000/- {compulsory deduction} = Rs.2.74 Lac; of course subject to execution/submission of papers documents as detailed out Ex.OP3 in the  letter dated 16.06.2020. Further, the OP insurers' Surveyor the OP4 had also advised of the settlement of claim Ex.OP4 vide his letter of 20.01.2020 along with survey report Ex.OP5 in line with the terms and conditions Ex.OP6 of the related policy. Lastly, the complaint has been bad for non-joining of the necessary parties like HDFC Bank whose name appears as financier of the insured vehicle in terms of its Ex.OP7 registration certificate. Lastly, there's no cause of action/locus-standee to file the present complaint which is totally false and frivolous and he has not come to the honorable court with clean hands.

5.       Further, the insurance is a contract between the two parties and both are bound by its terms & conditions and these cannot be increased or decreased and there has been no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, the OP Insurers have admitted having insured the complainant's car that met with the road side accident near Karnal and upon getting intimation they had deputed their Surveyor the OP4 and had settled the claim in terms of the survey report and the related policy. The complainant has been senselessly demanding the car's IDV sans submission of the requisitioned documents necessary to amicably determine the said claim. The OP insurers have denied all other allegations qua the complaint addressing these as incorrect or being matter of records etc. Lastly the OP insurers have filed the affidavit Ex.OPW1,2/A of their authorized signatory along with the here-in-above referred exhibits and have sought dismissal of the present complaint.

6.       The OP3 agent has filed his written statement through India-post registered cover denying all the contents/allegations as contained in the present complaint and denied ever being in service or holding an agency representing the herein OP insurers. He had no other role other than being an insurance advisor.

7.       The OP4 was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.3.2021 as he opted to stay absent from the related proceedings etc.       

8.       We have examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective litigants. We find that the present point of prime contention between the two sides has been on the issue of sharing of the proceeds of total-loss claim amicably settled at IDV but for the collateral issues of salvage, towing cum garaging etc.        

9.       We observe that the salvage-value of the damaged-car was determined by the OP insurers themselves and thus they need to accept the same unhesitatingly sans demur. But the complainant's on the spot/ site decision to tow the damaged car to Dada's Jalandhar at an expense of Rs.10,500/- (may be at the OP instance) betrays logic and instead garaging at somewhat nearby local garage sounds wiser as an austerity-measure, too.                  

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the herein opposite party insurers to pay the full IDV of Rs.3.55 Lac to the complainant being the amount of the impugned claim along with interest @ 6% PA w e from the date of the complaint besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till paid in full.

11.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

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

                                                                    (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President.                 

ANNOUNCED:                                        (B.S.Matharu)

SEP. 23, 2022.                                                Member.

YP.