Complainant Sunil Kumar Arora Proprietor of M/s.R.K.Traders, through the present complaint has sought the necessary directions to the opposite party to make the compensation/loss good to the tune of Rs.76,000/- to him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to be calculated from when it due till its realization. Opposite party be further directed to pay adequate compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he being owner of the vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio) bearing Registration No.PB-35-R-1998 got his vehicle full insured with the opposite party and due to flood on 6.8.2016, his vehicle was submerged in the water and stopped in the flood and it was towed from there by the Crane and due to that the actual loss of Rs.76,000/- was suffered. All the bills have also been submitted to the opposite party, regarding that the Surveyor was also appointed by the opposite party on his intimation but now the opposite party is not going to indemnify the total loss accrued by him due to the said incident, reason best known to the opposite party, even after his repeated requests. The opposite party is  ready to pay Rs.4478/- only and not the total loss i.e. Rs.76,000/-. He has next pleaded that he has already disclosed to the opposite party, the details of the said loss occurs to him due to the said incident but the opposite party did not care of that and more so, the said compensation is to be indemnified by the opposite party being insurer. Thereafter he through his counsel has issued a legal notice dated 17.11.2016 calling upon the opposite party to make the said compensation/loss good to the tune of Rs.76,000/- to him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party, he has suffered a lot of harassment from the hands of the opposite party. 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 from complainant on 09.08.2016 opposite party deputed Rajiv Sharma Surveyor and Loss Assessor Dhangu Road Pathankot for Motor (final) Survey report. Mr.Rajiv Sharma Surveyor and Loss Assessor submitted his Motor (Final) survey report on 26.08.2016 by assessing net value of loss to the vehicle No.PB-35R-1998 in the name of Sunil Kumar Arora of Rs.5478/-. The internal parts of engine assy are not payable as per policy, since these are damaged due to consequential loss as insured’s driver had tried to start the vehicle after it stopped in the water. Thereafter opposite party wrote a letter dated 18.11.2016 to complainant to submit a cancelled cheque with your Bank account details in order to enable opposite party to pay the claim at the earliest, but complainant did not respond to that letter and issued a notice dated 17.11.2016 to opposite party through his counsel Mr.Raman Mahajan Advocate by leveling false allegations upon opposite party. So as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy opposite party is not liable to indemnify any loss accrued to vehicle No.PB-35V-8598 in the name of Sunil Kumar Arora. The opposite party is ready to pay the compensation to the complainant as per the survey report dated 26.08.2016 of Rajiv Sharma Surveyor and Loss Assessor who assessed net value loss of Rs.5478.50 to the vehicle in the name of Sunil Kumar Arora. It has next submitted that the complainant through his counsel has issued a legal notice dated 17.11.2016 calling upon the opposite party to make the said compensation loss good of the complainant to the tune of Rs.76,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to be calculated from when it due till its realization but the said notice was replied by the counsel for the opposite party by giving complete details. 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 ExC1 along with other documents exhibited as Ex.C2 to Ex C19 and closed the evidence.

5.    Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit 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 of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the instant dispute has prompted at the OP insurer’s settling (Ex.OP3) the complainant’s vehicle claim @ Rs.4,478/- in terms of the Surveyor’s Report (Ex.OP4) against its filed (Ex.OP5) claim-amount (Ex.C11, Ex.C12 and Ex.C15) of Rs.76,000/- stated/claimed to have been actually spent/incurred/paid (Ex.C8, Ex.C9 and Ex.C10) towards repairs to the insured vehicle damaged upon getting stalled in flood waters in the morning (11:30 AM) of 06.08.2016 while being driven on the inundated-road near the Brahman Samaj Sabha, Pathankot.

7.       We further find that the opposite party insurers have addressed/termed this damage caused to the vehicle as ‘consequential-loss’ (not covered under the applicable policy) caused to the internal parts of the vehicle’s engine as a result of the futile attempts to start the inundated/stalled vehicle and have thus part-repudiated the insurance claim on the strength of the Surveyor’s Report.

8.       In turn, the complainant has simply contested the OP insurers’ part-repudiation/surveyor’s report through bald statements sans any firm/cogent evidentiary/technical support by way of an expert opinion and/or technical literature rebutting/negating the theory of consequential loss and in its absence the loss-quantum as assessed out in the Survey Report (Ex.OP4) shall prevail.         

9.       Thus, we observe that the complainant has failed to prove/place on record that the OP Insurers have inadvertently/wrongly repudiated his insurance claim, in part. However, we also find that the insurers have un-necessarily deferred/delayed the payment of the partly-settled claim on arbitrary and flimsy grounds only and that validly attracts our judicial annoyance and censure so that fruits of claim settlement are expedited at their end.

10.     In the light of the all above, we find that the instant complaint (being bereft of the requisite statutory merit) shall be best disposed of by directing the OP insurers to urgently pay to the present complainant the settled amount (in terms of the Surveyor’s Report) but within 30 days of the receipt of the orders.

11.     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)

December, 01 2017.                                                   Member

*MK*