Complainant Sampuran Singh vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.80,900/- for repair  alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization and letter dated 31.07.2015 may be declare illegal, null and void. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for harassment and Rs.8,000/- for deficiency in service, in the interest of justice.

2.          The case of the complainant in brief is that he has got insured his car having no.PB-35-P-4310 from the opposite parties for a period from 26.03.2014 to 25.03.2015. During the period of insurance, his vehicle met with an accident on 11.12.2014 when he reached near Nirankari Bhawan, Sujanpur,  an animal came in front of the car and to save the animal, he tried to stop the car and lost the balance of the car due to which the car struck in the tree and car was damaged in an accident. The DDR dated 12.12.2014 has been duly recorded in this regard.  He lodged claim with the opposite parties and surveyor was also appointed. All the formalities duly completed, but the insurance company failed to make the payment of the claim. He paid Rs.80,900/- to the Kashmir Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. Symbol Chowk, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot for the repair of the vehicle. The Insurance Company failed to make the payment and wrongly repudiated the claim on false and flimsy ground vide letter dated 31.7.2015 which is illegal, null and void. The Insurance Company alleged that the investigator during investigation found that the vehicle not met with an accident as alleged by the complainant, but damaged in accident at District Ludhiana.  It was next pleaded that the story alleged by the Insurance Company is false, frivolous and only with malafide intention. Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite parties insurer appeared through their counsel and filed their written version taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and there is no negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties. The claim has been filed by the complainant and it has been repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant gave wrong facts regarding the accident and concealed the material facts due to which the claim has been repudiated. The complainant alleged that the accident took place near Nirankari Bhawan, when an animal came in front of the car and complainant lost the balance from the car and struck in the tree. But actually the investigation has been conducted through S.A. Investigating and consulting agency and he submitted his investigation report dated 27.7.2015. From the report of investigation, it becomes clear that the vehicle was not met with the alleged accident at the spot as alleged by him. During investigation, it also revealed that the accident had taken place in District Ludhiana and the complainant kept his damaged vehicle at his residence for a long time. Even the complainant has not co-operated in the investigation. So the investigating report is very much clear that the complainant concealed the material facts and has not filed the claim with true facts. The vehicle has been duly surveyed by the Surveyor Vishal Gupta and he also submitted his final survey report and from his report, it also becomes clear that damage sustained to the vehicle do not corroborate with the cause of loss. So the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 31.7.2015 on the basis of Survey report and on the basis of investigation report on the ground that damages sustained to the vehicle, do not corroborate with the cause of loss as mentioned in the claim form and as the false story of accident has been made but accident took somewhere in District Ludhiana. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and the claim has rightly been repudiated. It has further submitted that the vehicle has been duly surveyed by Vikas Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pathankot and he submitted his final report dated 24.1.2015 after fully inspecting the vehicle and after going through the damaged parts and as per Survey report the net loss assessed is of Rs.61,964/-. So the liability of the insurance company in no case be more than Rs.61,964/- and that too after compulsory deductions if any provided in the policy and the complaint of the complainant is not within limitation. On merits also, the same pleadings have been repeated and dismissal of the complaint prayed.

4.           Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-I along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C2 to Ex C8 and closed the evidence.

5.         On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Chadha Ex.OP1 and of Sh.S.D.Bhalla Investigator Ex.OP-2, alongwith other documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence.

6.         We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We find that the OP insurers disallowed the impugned Car Accident Insurance Claim vides repudiation letter Ex.C3/Ex.OP3 dated 31.07.2015 for of the one & only reason (as addressed therein) that the accident-site has been wrongly/falsely mentioned (in the insurance claim Ex.OP9) as: near Nirankari Bhawan, N.H. Sujanpur; whereas the accident had actually taken place somewhere near Ludhiana (Ex.OP4 & OP5) and the Car was later shifted to Kashmir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Pathankot for repairs etc. Thus, the present dispute pertains to the ‘place of accident’ only i.e., an issue of fact. The complainant has simply relied upon the DDR # 20 of 12.12.2014 (Ex.C8) filed with the P.S. Sujanpur in which the place of accident has been duly mentioned as: near Nirankari Bhawan, Sujanpur; but the DDR being a simple ‘recital’ of the complainant’s statement only cannot be considered as a complete and ‘cogent’ supporting evidence in the absence of any further ‘investigations’ etc. On the other hand, the OP insurers have duly produced an exhaustive (logical) investigator’s report (Ex.OP4) with the photographs of the complainant alleged accident-site duly supported by the investigator’s affidavit Ex.OP2 duly deposing the contents of his report. It has been successfully proved on record that the car-accident could not have occurred at the alleged accident-site since the trees along the right-hand side of the road are at a distance of 25 Ft (approx.) but separated by a deep-ditch and the car could not have struck any road-side tree, there. Further, the Surveyor Vishal Gupta has also mentioned in his survey report Ex.OP8 that the ‘damages’ sustained to the accidented car do not corroborate with the cause of loss/ accident; the complainant has indeed suppressed the ‘material’ information in his accident-claim that were material for him to disclose and that disentitles him to a favorable settlement of insurance-claim.         

7.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP insurers have righteously repudiated the insurance claim on account of the falsified information contained therein and thus ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint with however no orders as to its costs.   

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

                                                                              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                        President   

Announced:                                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 22, 2016                                                             Member

*MK*