Complainant Kuljit Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to make payment of remaining amount of Rs.37,140/- qua his claim immediately in terms of the Insurance Policy alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of accident till actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist by profession and owner of agricultural land. For the purpose of cultivation he purchased a Tractor make Mahindra & Mahindra Arjun 555 DI bearing Registration No.PB-06-W-2610 Engine No.595 and Chassis No.595 from the opposite party no.2 and it was fully insured with the opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 vide policy cover note No.P0015400002/4107/130631 valid from 15.7.2014 to midnight of 14.7.2015. The policy is comprehensive and covers all risks and as per terms and conditions of the policy the opposite party no.1 was fully liable to compensate him for loss of vehicle/tractor, driver, helper and any other kind of loss. It was further pleaded that on 7.9.2014 at about 10 A.M. he was going for plaguing his fields with the abvoesaid tractor and at that time the tractor was being driven by Manjinderpal Singh son of Harjit Singh at its normal speed and with utmost care and precaution but all of sudden some person who was coming on a motorcycle came in front of the abovesaid tractor. The driver of the tractor with intention to save the said person applied brakes, on account of which the Tractor became imbalanced and turned turtle and its chassis, body, engine etc was damaged. Information regarding this accident was also given to the opposite parties by him. The opposite parties deputed their surveyor who visited the spot and assessed the loss and directed him to get the tractor repaired. Thereafter, he got his tractor repaired from United Engineers, 43 Hide Market Amritsar and spent on it Rs.37,140/- and he paid this amount to them. Thereafter, he approached the opposite party no.1 and submitted his claim duly supported by bills etc. for making payment of spare parts and other expenses incurred on the repair of the tractor but the opposite parties repudiated his claim as ‘No Claim’. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The claim has been filed by the complainant, in which he alleged that loss had occurred in an alleged accident. The Surveyor Rajesh Kumar Soni has been deputed to survey and to assess the loss. During inspection Rajesh Kumar Soni found that no physical damage was visible from outside apart from front Rim, but the damage to the rim was not fresh in nature and found as old damage. The surveyor duly submitted his survey report and as per his survey report, the claim of the complainant has been closed vide letter dated 19.9.2014 and it is settled law that the liability of the insurance company is as per survey report and as per terms and conditions of the policy but as already stated the surveyor has duly reported that no physical damage was visible and even the damage found on the rim was old one, due to which the claim has been closed. So, there is no liability of the insurance Company. On merits, it was submitted that the claim has been filed by the complainant in which he alleged that loss has been occurred in an alleged accident. The Surveyor Rajesh Kumar Soni has been deputed to survey and to assess the loss. During inspection Rajesh Kumar Soni found that no physical damage was visible from outside apart from front Rim, but the damage to the rim was not fresh in nature and found as old damage. The surveyor duly submitted his survey report, the claim of the complainant has been closed vide letter dated 19.9.2014. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.

4.     Notice issued to the opposite party no.2 has not received back. None has come present on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.7.2015.

5.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Gupta Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-1/1 and of Sh.Rajesh Kumar Soni Ex.OP1/2 alongwith other documents Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/14 and closed the evidence.

7.       We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while at the same time also taking the due judicial-notice of the OP2 vender’s intentional ‘ex-parte’ participation, in spite of the ‘recorded’ summon-service. Although, it has been a settled law that a titled party’s intentional absence/ex-parte participation will give rise to the judicial but discretionary presumption that the ex-parte/absentee litigant has no defense to prosecute; still, we have provided a judicious opportunity to the OP2 vendor by way of a close examination and a fairly deduced ‘resume’ upon which to place/ base the resultant award under the adjudicatory Act. We find that the present complaint has prompted as a result of ‘repudiation’ Ex.C15 (same as Ex.OP1/3) of the accident-repair claim Ex.OP1/7 for Rs.37,140/- of the insured Tractor of the complainant. The OP1 insurers have repudiated the impugned insurance claim on the strength basis of the Surveyor’s Report Ex.OP1/4 (duly supported by affidavit Ex.OP1/2) stating therein that there has been no apparent/ physical accidental loss/damage as visibly sighted from the Tractor alleged to have met with a road-side accident with motorcycle. The damage whatsoever to the front wheel-rim was also seemingly not ‘fresh’ as alleged to have been resulted from the reported accident. The complainant has not even attempted to contest/challenge the Surveyor’s Report during the entire proceedings and thus its findings shall deem to have been proved. We also observe that the repair/labor Bills Ex.C3 (2 nos.) same as Ex.OP1/5 & OP1/6 and the photographs Ex.C4 to Ex.C12 all conform to overhauling of the Tractor Engine and not the repairs to the ‘damage’ as having resulted out of an accident. Further, no evidence of any physical damage to the chassis/external parts/outer-side portions of the Tractor (in the form of photographs/repair bills) have been produced. Thus, we do not see any actionable ‘merit’ under the statute, in the present complaint.                

8.       In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint to be devoid of all actionable merit as statutorily envisaged under the CP Act and thus ORDER the dismissal of the same with however no orders as to its costs.

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

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President

ANNOUNCED:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

February,08 2016.                                                                Member.

*MK*