1. The fact of the case of complainant is that he is the owner of the Maruti Suzuki Dzire bearing Regd. No. TS-15-ES-6063 validly insured with the O.P. vide policy no. 1-18WCPLYI from 21.10.2019 to 20.10.2020.  It is submitted that on 13.11.2019 while coming from Sukuma to Malkangiri, the vehicle met with an accident and got severely damaged and he immediately intimated the fact to the O.P. and on the next day, the surveyor came to the spot and after preparation of report, he suggested to lift out the vehicle to the authorized garage and as per his advise, complainant lifted the vehicle to the authorized service center where the estimate was prepared for Rs. 2,47,618.10. Thereafter, he submitted the relevant documents to the O.P. for early settlement. It is alleged that on January, 2020 the O.P. asked for the toll gate entry number while towing the vehicle from the accidental spot to the garage for settlement of insurance claim, which is not justified and since then, he moved several times but did not get any result, thus being harassed, he filed this case with a pray to direct the O.P. to settle the insurance claim on the basis of estimate value, to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- 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 vide no. MA987369 valid from 21.10.2019 to 20.10.2020 against the alleged vehicle and occurrence of accident of the alleged vehicle, but strictly denied with the plea of complainant contending with only one plea that as per the survey report and investigation report, they found some differences between the vehicle which was produced at the time of preinspection and issuance of policy was different from the vehicle which met an accident and presented at the time of accident, thus showing their no liability they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. Complainant filed certain documents in support of his allegations whereas the O.P. did not choose to file any documents.  Heard from the parties present and perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
4. Complainant has filed the following documents :
   1. Copy of letter submitted to Investigator,
   2. Copy of towing bill issued by Bajrangi Breakdown vide bill no. 147 dated 16.11.2019
   3. Copy of insurance policy,
   4. Copy of medical bills and prescription (4 nos.)
   5. Copy of service estimate for Rs. 2,47,618.10 issued by Legend Cars Pvt. Ltd. vide estimate no. ES19000482 dated 21.11.2019
   6. Copy of R.C. vide no. TN-15-ES-6063
   7. Copy of D.L. vide no. TN38 20140001590

5. In the instant case, issuance of insurance policy vide no. 1-18WCPLYI - MA987369 valid from 21.10.2019 to 20.10.2020  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 13.11.2019 for which complainant intimated the fact to the O.P. and accordingly the surveyor of O.P. came to the spot and advised to shift the vehicle to the garage.  It is also an admitted fact that complainant shifted his vehicle to the authorized service center of Legend Cars Pvt. Ltd, where the estimate was prepared for Rs. 2,47,618.10 which was submitted to O.P. alongith other relevant documents for settlement of insurance claim.  The allegations of complainant is that though he submitted all the relevant documents to the O.P. for settlement of insurance claim, but the O.P. repudiate the insurance claim on the ground of requirement of toll gate entry number while towing the vehicle from the accidental spot to the service center, which is not justified.  Whereas the only contentions of O.P. is that they found some difference in the alleged vehicle while on preinspection & issuance of policy and the vehicle was presented at the time of claim.  Now the question arose to decide :

1. Whether the toll gate entry number is highly essential for settlement of insurance claim ?
2. Whether the alleged vehicle is a different one at the time of claim ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled reliefs as claimed. 

6. Coming to first point, we have gone through the documents filed by the complainant and ascertained that he is the owner of the alleged vehicle bearing Regd. No. TS-15-ES-6063 and the vehicle is validly insured with the O.P. vide insurance policy no. 1-18WCPLYI - MA987369 valid from 21.10.2019 to 20.10.2020 and the complainant has valid D.L. vide no. TN38 20140001590 authorised to drive LMV NT (non transport).  It is also ascertained that alleged accident occurred during the valid period of insurance policy and all the documents are issued by the respective authorities, which are not rebuttal / challenged at any point of time.  The allegation of complainant is that due to non availability of toll gate entry number, the O.P. repudiates the insurance claim.  In this connection, we have gone through the insurance policy issued against the alleged vehicle and ascertained that nowhere it is mentioned regarding requirement of toll gate entry number, which is highly essential for settlement of insurance claim.  We do not think that the toll gate entry number is highly required for settlement of insurance claim.  Further it is ascertained from the counter filed by the O.P. nowhere they have raised any dispute regarding such facts. Hence asking for toll gate entry number by the O.P. is not justified, accordingly, answer goes in favour of the complainant.

7. Coming to the second point, the contentions of O.P. is that they found some differences between the vehicle at the time of preinspection and issuance of policy and the vehicle at the time of claim, but never uttered any single point regarding to the effect that there is some differences in chassis no, engine no. and Regd. No. of the vehicle.  As such we do not think that the changes made in the alleged vehicle, becomes different vehicle.Further, it is a common phenomena of maxium vehicle purchasers that after purchasing a vehicle they want to change the looks of the vehicle as per their own choice.Hence we do not think that the plea taken by the O.P., in the instant case, can help them to come out from their liability.Further, the O.P. has not filed any single documents to prove their contentions regarding the differences of the alleged vehicle and without cogent evidence, the technical plea of O.P. cannot stand from any angle.Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.

8. Further it is seen that O.P. has not filed any survey report or investigator’s report to prove their submissions.  Accordingly, the point no. 3 also goes in favour of the complainant.

9. As per the discussions made above, in our view, the complainant is entitled to receive the estimated amount from the Opp. Party.  Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried his level best to get the genuine claims from the Opp. Party, but failed, for which he is  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 repaired amount of Rs. 2,47,618.10 or to say Rs. 2,47,618/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.  And all the direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 2,47,618/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of case i.e. 07.02.2020 till payment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of October, 2020. 

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.