The titled Complainant Sh.Jaswant Singh aggrieved at partial-settlement of his Car-Accident Insurance-Claim by way of non-replacement of its damaged Wind-Shield Glass as was excluded by the OP Surveyor (in his Report) has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite party insurers seeking replacement of the same in terms of the related Policy besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation, all in the interest of justice. The complainant has been the owner of Skoda Make (Rapid) Model 2014 Car with R.C. No. PB-06-AB-9700 and had comprehensively insured it with the OP insurers @ an IDV of Rs.6.70 Lac through Policy No.74572632 (Ex.C1) valid w.e.f. 31.12.2016 to 30.12.2017. Somehow, the said Car met with one Road-side Accident in September' 2017 and was got repaired under the related Depreciated Cap Policy as such the Repairs Bills were directly paid to the Repairer Work-shop M/s Krishna Automobiles but the damaged Wind-Shield (Ex.C2) Glass was not replaced as the Surveyor reported it having not resulted from the same accident i.e., did not correlate it to the one and same cause of loss/damage. The complainant has repeatedly pleaded that the wind-shield glass was damaged in the same accident as has been evident qua body-shop file of the Auto W/shop but the OP insurers were not convinced/agreeing and thus prompted the present complaint supported by the complainant's affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with the other exhibited documents in evidence, as above, and seeking the aforesaid reliefs.  

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

3.       That the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has neither 'cause of action' nor 'locus-standee' to file the present complaint. And, there has been 'No deficiency in Service' on their part. In fact, the complainant's Car was surveyed by the IRDA approved Surveyor deputed by the OP insurers to assess the loss/damage caused to the Car as a result of the accident and the Surveyor in his report had remarked that the Glass wind-shield loss/damage did not correlate to the same accident/ cause of loss hence the same was excluded from the accident-claim and the other damages were duly covered and got duly repaired. On merits, the same objections/pleadings, as above, are repeated and lastly the OP insurers have sought dismissal of the present complaint and have also filed the listed documents (along with the duly Sworn Affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 by their Sh.Rajiv Ranjan G.M. & the Authorized Signatory) in evidence: Ex.OP1,2/2–Copy of Final Survey Report dated 18.01.2018; Ex.OP1,2/3–Copy of Motor Claim Form; Ex.OP1,2/4–Copy of Driving License; Ex.OP1,2/5– Copy of Policy Cover Note; Ex.OP1,2/6–Copy of the insured Car's Registration Certificate; Ex.OP1,2/7–Copy of the Tax Invoice 17.09.2017; Ex.OP1,2/8– Copy of the damaged CAR Photographs; Ex.OP1,2/9– Copy of the Policy Schedule cum Package; Ex.OP1,2/10– Copy of the Policy Wording.

4.         We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides, on points of law, and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care and caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We are also inclined to examine the inference it’s ‘scope n spread’ on account of some documents ignored to be produced/not-produced during the course of the present proceedings. We observe that the OP insurers' prime objection/pleading favoring its partial claim settlement and repudiation of the claim-portion pertaining to replacement of the Front Wind-Shield Glass has been that the OP Surveyor has rejected/not admitted it as an outcome resultant from the same very accident. We find that the OP Surveyor has neither placed forth any logic in support nor his affidavit in evidence to his opinion and as such the same shall not be legally acceptable, here.       

5.        We thus discard the OP insurers' above pleadings/arguments, being in total contravention of the laws of equity, good conscience and natural justice. We are of the considered opinion at the face of the evidenced-facts as available on the records that there’s have been an unfair display of its superior/dominant position by the OP Insurers in settling the accident-claim that they have been legally bound to honor of course up to the accepted IDV level; and as such the impugned ‘partial-settlement’ on the OP insurer's part of the insurance-claim, in question, had been unwarranted, arbitrary and unfair; neither in accordance with the provisions of the statutory law nor in conformity with the sanctity of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Further, it has violated with impunity the preferred statutory consumer rights of the complainant causing him much physical as well as mental harassment cum agony and loss of peace in his routine normal life. Lastly, we hold the insurers guilty of statutory misconduct amounting to ‘unfair trade practices/deficiency in service’ and thus liable to an adverse award under the provisions of the governing statute. However, the OP insurers in order to pay the impugned claim shall be at liberty to procure certified copies of the requisite document(s), if any, from the records of the present complaint, in accordance with the prescribed rules.  

6.       In the light of the all above, we order the opposite party insurers to pay the impugned claim in terms of the related policy i.e. the full invoice value/price of the good quality Front Wind Glass Shield with interest @ 6% PA from the date of complaint (till paid in full) besides Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as cost cum compensation within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregated award amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till realization, in full.   

7.         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.

8.        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)

NOV. 25, 2022.                                              Member.

YP.