1. The fact of the case of complainant is that she insured her Hyundai Verna vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-30-C-8640 with the O.P. vide policy no. 2311203213899601000 valid from 16.03.2021 to 15.03.2020 covering all accidental charges to the vehicle.  It is submitted that during valid period of insurance, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged and she immediately intimated the fact to the O.P. and as per their instructions, she lifted the vehicle to Hindustan Sales Pvt. Ltd., where after survey was carried out by O.P., the repair invoices were raised for Rs. 37,754/- and Rs. 27,749/-.It is alleged that for early settlement of insurance claim, the concerned surveyor demanded Rs. 5,000/-, but complainant could not paid the same due to financial problems and the vehicle is lying the aforesaid garage. It is further alleged that on June, 2021 she received the repudiation letter from the O.P. towards insurance claim and in this regard, several approaches to surveyor and the O.P. got in vein. Thus being suffering from mental agony, she filed this case with a pray to direct the O.P. to settle the insurance claim on the basis of invoice value, to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation expenses.

2. The Opp. Party appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed their written version admitting the issuance of the insurance policy, but denied with the allegations of complainant contending that the case is not maintainable on the point of non joinder of necessary party, as the alleged vehicle is under finance from HDFC Bank ltd.  Further contended that the fact of accident is not corroborated with the fact mentioned in the claim form submitted by complainant and the damages occurred to the vehicle are pre existing damages, as informed by their surveyor, for which they have repudiated the insurance claim on 02.06.2021. Further contended that the concerned surveyor has assessed the loss to an amount of Rs. 34,869/-, but the right of admissibility of claim always rest with the O.P. and with contentions, showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. Complainant filed certain documents like (i) copy of insurance policy, (ii) copy of R.C. Book & (iii) original copy of 2 nos. of invoices raised by Hindustan Sales Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. towards repair of the vehicle in support of her allegations, whereas the O.P. filed affidavit, some photographs of damaged vehicle and conditions of insurance policy.  Heard from the complainant and A/R for O.P. and perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
4. In the instant case, issuance of insurance policy vide no. 2311203213899601000 valid from 16.03.2021 to 15.03.2020 against the alleged vehicle is an admitted fact and it is also an admitted fact that during the valid period of policy, the alleged vehicle met with an accident for which complainant intimated the fact to the O.P. and accordingly the surveyor of O.P. carried out the survey work and advised to shift the vehicle to the garage.  It is also an admitted fact that complainant shifted her vehicle to the authorized service center of Hindustan Sales Pvt. Ltd., where the invoice was prepared for Rs. 37,754/- & Rs. 27,749/- on two occasions, which were submitted to O.P. alongwith other relevant documents for settlement of insurance claim.  The allegations of complainant is that though she submitted all the relevant documents to the O.P. for settlement of insurance claim, but the O.P. repudiated the insurance claim on the ground of the differences exist in claim form and the as per report of the surveyor, which is not justified and hence she filed this case.  Whereas the contentions of O.P. is that they found some differences in the alleged vehicle while on preinspection and claim form submitted by complainant, thus denying their liabilities.   

5. It is ascertained from documents that due to the accident, complainant shifted her alleged vehicle to garage of Hindustan Sales Pvt. Ltd where after survey work carried out by the surveyor, the invoices was raised for Rs. 37,754/- and Rs. 27,749/- in toto Rs. 65,503/-, which were challenged by the O.P. stating that the damages found by the surveyor are not corroborated as per insurance claim form submitted by the complainant, but have miserably failed to produce the insurance claim form and preinspection report to make out any contradiction and without such documents, the plea of O.P. cannot sustained.  Whereas it is well known to all that the survey report is having vital value for settlement of insurance claim.  Hence without such documents, the version of O.P. is not believable.  
    
6. Further we have gone through the survey report of Sri Er. M. Raghavendra, Surveyor & Loss Assessor and found that in clause Observation & Remark, wherein it is mentioned that
   
   “1. As per claim form cause of loss statement the damages were received to the above shown assessment parts are already Pre-existing damaged before policy inception. Hence will not fall under policy terms & conditions.
   
   2. x x x x x x x”  
   
   If it is considered that the damages are pre-existing before inception of policy, than it is a matter of surprise that how the O.P. has accepted the insurance proposal form and also issued the insurance policy against the damaged vehicle.At the time of issuance of such insurance policy, the O.P. must have noticed the entire physical conditions of the alleged vehicle and after being satisfy, they have issued the alleged insurance policy.When they have already issued the insurance policy against the alleged vehicle, the question of pre-existing damages does not arise.Further the O.P. have not submitted any opinion / report regarding pre-existing damages of alleged vehicle.Hence in our view, without any specific report of pre-existing damages, the plea of pre-existing damages is not believable and the survey report is not accurate.
       
7. Further it is ascertained that the surveyor carried out the survey work and assessed the loss of Rs. 34,869/- against the damaged vehicle.  Had there in differentiate found out by the concerned surveyor, he was supposed to intimate the O.P. immediately, but without doing so, the concerned surveyor kept silent and submitted his report to the O.P. for settlement.  Further the O.P. has not filed single documents to substantiate the versions of complainant.
    
8. As per the discussions made above, in our view, the complainant is entitled to receive the entire estimated value submitted by the concerned service center.  Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried her level best to get the genuine claims from the Opp. Party, but failed, for which she was compelled to file this case to seek proper reliefs.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                               ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The Opp. Party, being the insurer of the alleged vehicle, is herewith directed to refund the estimated value of Rs. 65,503/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.  And all the directions should be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 65,507/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 02.06.2021 till payment.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 29^th day of August, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.