Complainant Buta Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the amount of Rs.44,798/- which was spent by him for repair of the bus in question. He has also claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation for illegally harassment by the opposite parties to him and also mental agony, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased New Bus make TATA School Bus bearing Temp No.PB-08-CF-9243 on 7.4.2015, Engine No.BUY606760, Chassis No.04F8B05354 for self employment and for earning his livelihood for his family members and he has no other source of his livelihood except the bus in question. The bus was insured from the opposite parties bearing policy cover note no.401407798894 dated 07.04.2015 which was valid from 07.04.2015 to 06.04.2016. Thereafter, he applied for Registration Certificate of Bus in question to the District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur and his permanent registration number was PB-06-V-7254. He has further pleaded that Bus in question met with an accident on 12.10.2015 and struck with Elcyclptus tree while saving one motor cyclist and buffalo. He informed the opposite party no.1 about this accident and completed all the formalities. Moreover, a rapat was entered in the Police Station Kahnuwan on 13.10.2015 regarding the accident. According to the instruction of the officials of the opposite party no.1, he was advised to repair the bus in question at his own from Guru Ram Dass Body Builder, Jalandhar Road, Sulakhni Market, Batala and accordingly he repaired the bus in question and estimated amount was Rs.1,09,000/- and also informed the opposite party no.1, they advised to  get repaired the bus and  will pay the amount of repair. He spent Rs.73,718/- for the repair of bus in question and thereafter submitted claim before the opposite party no.1 and they put off the matter with one pretext or the other. He has next pleaded that to his utter surprise, the opposite party no.1 had paid only Rs.28,920/- against the amount of Rs.73,718/- which was sent through online transaction to his account bearing No.02651000213206 of HDFC Bank, Gurdaspur on 15.2.2016 which shows clearly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thereafter, he approached the opposite parties and requested to make the payment of remaining amount of Rs.44,798/- but they refused to make the payment of abovesaid amount. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is without any merits and without any cause of action, complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as no such theft as alleged by the complainant ever took place, complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such complainant is not entitled to any relief and complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this present complaint,. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has falsely stated that his Bus bearing no.PB-08-CF-9243 met with an accident on 12.10.2015 as it struck with Elcyclptus tree while saving one motor cyclist and buffalo. The complainant had executed a duly attested affidavit dated 04.02.2016 in which he had stated that one motorcycle had struck against the bus of the complainant and the motorcyclist was also injured in the accident and as such it is crystal clear that the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. It was further submitted that the complainant had not given the immediate intimation to the insurance company as it is required as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Moreover the complainant had not got conducted the spot survey of the bus as it is required as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as such the writing is clear on the wall that the complainant is making false assertions and leveling false allegations against the opposite party.  It has next submitted that the opposite party had settled the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as per the loss assessed by the surveyor. Mr.Sanjay Sarin, Surveyor assessed a loss of Rs.39,140/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy but as the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, 25% amount was deducted from the amount assessed by the surveyor treating the claim of the complainant as non-standard and as such an amount of Rs.28,920/- was sanctioned as claim payable to the complainant. Other averments made in the complaint have been specifically denied. Lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with heavy costs. 

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr.Tarsem Lal Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents  Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 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 of 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’s part-repudiation by the OP insurers alleging serious breach of the Policy’s terms through change of the accident version and having not got the spot survey done. The OP insurers have admitted the factum of accident but have paid the claim on the ‘non-standard’ basis on account of the above reason and thus have paid 75% of the surveyor’s assessment of Rs.39,140/- to the complainant who somehow has not contested/challenged the surveyor’s report.

7.       However, we find that the OP insurers have settled the claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as per the loss assessed by the surveyor. Mr. Sanjay Sarin was appointed as the surveyor and he assessed the loss of Rs.39,140/- but as the complainant had violated the aforesaid terms and conditions of the policy, 25% amount was deducted from the amount assessed by the surveyor treating the claim as non-standard and as such an amount of Rs.28,920/- was rightly sanctioned and paid. Thus, the above claim settlement on non-standard basis by the insurers does not amount to deficiency in service and as such finding no merit in the present complaint the same is hereby dismissed.

8.       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 10, 2016.                                        Member.

*MK*