Complainant Rashpal Singh through the present complaint has sought the necessary directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.8,44,502/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till actual realization of the amount to him alongwith Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses, traveling expenses and other expenses, in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he duly insured one HCVLPS 4018 Truck bearing Registration No.PB06V-2615, Chassis No.MAT 447224 E3G 14969, Engine No.B591803241G633 with the opposite parties for Rs.23,99,999/- vide policy No.401900/31/14/6300003279 for the period from 22.8.2014 to 21.8.2015. In the midnight of 29.4.2015 his son namely Sukhjit Singh was driving the said vehicle and the same was met with an accident at village Lakha Musahib, F.F.Road, Near Govt. Middle School and the truck was damaged and the matter was reported to the police station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka vide Rapat dated 29.4.2015 as well as to the opposite parties. He removed the said truck in the workshop of M/s.Dada Motors Pvt.Ltd. G.T.Road, P.O.Kishangarh Mehandipur (Ludhiana) for its repair and spent Rs.7,18,438/- on it, out of which the opposite parties had paid a sum of Rs.4,73,936/- i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- on or about 2.11.2015 and Rs.73,936/- on 19.12.2015. Hence a sum of Rs.2,44,502/- has not been paid to him. The vehicle remained in the premises of M/s.Dada Motor Limited for its repair etc. for about 8 months and the delay has been caused due to the non repair of the truck as he had got no sufficient funds to spend the amount. Even he was not able to pay the installments to the Financer M/s.Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and heavy interest has been accrued. Besides this, he has mentally and physically suffered and he has not been able to ply the vehicle for a sufficient period of 8 months. He is plying the vehicle only for his livelihood and he pulling on his family with the income of said vehicle and he has got no other source of income for his livelihood and his family member. Hence, he has suffered a loss of Rs.6,00,000/- i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- loss of earning during the period of eight months as mentioned above and Rs.2,00,000/- lacs as mental and physical harassment and also excess interest being charged by Finance Company. Hence the total amount comes to Rs.8,44,502/- which the opposite parties are allegedly liable to pay to him. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written version through its counsel, taking the preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous; no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite party to file the present complaint, hence the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed, with exemplary cost. On merits, it was submitted that after receiving intimation of accident from the complainant the opposite parties through its Divisional Office Amritsar deputed Ravinder Kumar Gupta Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Jaglian Street, Fazilka to give Motor (Spot) Survey Report. Ravinder Kumar Gupta Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Jaglian Street, Fazilka has given Motor (Spot) survey report on 11.05.2015 to the opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties through its Divisional Office Amritsar deputed Er.Ramesh Goyal Engineers, Surveyors and valuers, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana submitted his detailed report on 25.07.2015 by assessing loss payable Rs.5,14,436/-. Thereafter the opposite parties has paid Rs.4,73,936/- to complainant. So the opposite parties have made the total payment of loss caused to the vehicle of insured Rashpal Singh complainant as per the surveyor’s report and terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite parties made all the payment of accidental damage to the insured vehicle as per the surveyor’s report and terms and conditions of the policy. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit ExCW1/A along with other documents exhibited as Ex.C1 to Ex C10 and closed the evidence.

5. Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/4 and closed the evidence.

6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the complainant’s accident claim having been assessed on loss basis for an amount of Rs.514,436/- (Ex.OP1,2/2) by the OP insurer’s Surveyor whereas the complainant has claimed to have spent a total amount of Rs.718,438/- on the repairs of his accidented Truck. Further, the OP insurers have duly pleaded through the written statement and the affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 to have paid Rs. 4,73,936/- as claim in question on repair basis for the ‘accident’ damages as per the surveyor’s assessment of payable loss only as per the entitlement of the insured vehicle whereas the complainant wanted to get the full amount of repairs of Rs.7,18,483/-.

7. We find that the complainant has no doubt produced Ex.C3 to Ex.C7 the paid-up Invoices for the repairs carried out to his accidented vehicle but somehow he has neither contested the Surveyor’s Assessment of Accident Loss nor he has produced any technical expert opinion or other cogent evidence to prove that the amount spent on the repairs was indeed requisite to have repaired the damage caused to the insured vehicle by the instant accident and as such the OP insurers payment of the claim as per the Surveyor’s assessment shall be deemed to have been legal and in order. We are inclined to go by and follow the above legal proposition that carries the assent of the superior courts by virtue of a plethora of judgments on the subject matter under reference.

8. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP insurers to review the impugned insurance claim in terms of the here-exhibited Surveyor’s Final Report measured against the complainant’s objections to the instant settlement as submitted to them (by the complainant) within 10 working days of the receipt of the copy of these orders and decide the impugned claim afresh within 20 working days of the said submission. The parties shall however bear their own costs, here.

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)

August, 09 2017. Member

*MK*