Complainant Harish Kumar 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 party to pay Rs.3,86,575/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of accident till its realization alongwith Rs.70,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he got his truck Tralla-Tipper bearing registration no.PB-06-G-9659 comprehensively insured from the opposite parties vide policy No.401501/31/10/6300004926 and paid the premium of Rs.13,769/- to the opposite party which was valid from 9.3.2011 to 8.3.2012. The vehicle met with an accident on 2.2.2012 at Batala and an FIR No.40 dated 2.2.2012 U/S 304-A/279/427 IPC was registered with the Police Station, Civil Lines, Batala. This accident was reported to the opposite party who appointed its surveyor to assess the own damage loss of the vehicle. He fulfilled all the formalities and submitted all the documents as and when required by the opposite party. He also submitted estimate of the vehicle to the opposite party to the tune of Rs.3,86,575/- excluding all the taxes i.e. Vat and Sale Tax. He visited the office of the opposite party and made several telephonic calls to settle the claim, but of no avail. He received a registered letter dated 26.6.2013 repudiating his genuine claim on the grounds that the driving license of the driver namely Balkar Singh son of Veer Singh registered at Sr.No.7735 issued by the DTO, Amritsar and renewed at Serial No.6262 dated 27.8.2010 at the D.T.O. Tarn Taran is fake. On receipt of the repudiation letter, he at his own got the verification done of the above mentioned driving license from Engineer Rohit Kapoor, Survyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer Amritsar who intimated him with the reports as per the record of the DTO Amritsar and DTO, Tarn Taran that the License No.7735 dated 27.4.1994 valid upto 26.4.1997 is issued by DTO, Amritsar and is valid for Scooter + HTV only and its renewal at serial no.6262 dated 27.8.2010 to 2.8.2013 valid for Scooter and HTV by the DTO Taran Taran are genuine. By repudiating his genuine claim has got wrongful gain to the opposite party and caused wrongful loss and this act of the opposite party is also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party insurer appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy; the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed and all allegations made in the complaint, which are not specifically denied. On merits, it was submitted that after intimation from the complainant on 13.2.2012 the opposite party appointed Er.Kuldip Singh Sahni Engineer, Consultant Surveyor & Loss Assessor G.T.Road, Batala for motor spot survey report and he submitted his report on 17.02.2012. Thereafter the opposite party appointed V.K.Mehta Surveyors Pvt.Ltd. Surveyors and Loss Assessor who submitted his report on 31.8.2012 by assessing loss of 1,42,192,07 on repair basis. Thereafter the opposite party appointed Vinay Kumar Nayyar Surveyors and Loss Assessor Pathankot for re inspection and who submitted his report on 17.9.2012. Thereafter the opposite party appointed H.R. Atri Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Pathankot for verification of bills submitted by the complainant to the opposite party and who submitted his report on 3.10.2012. Thereafter the opposite party appointed S.A. investigating and Consulting Agency Abrol Nagar Pathankot for investigation of D.L. in claim account Mr.Harish Kumar claim of vehicle no.PB-06G-9659 and who submitted his report on 12.6.2013. In his report S.A. Investigating & Consulting Agency held that the D.L.No.7735 has been issued by the DTO Amritsar in the name of Balvir Singh son of Vir Singh where as in the record of insurers/survey report the name of the driver is Mr.Balkar Singh son of Mr.Vir Singh. Hence in the basic DL of the person driving the vehicle the name of the license holder differs and the insurers may consider the driving license to be fake. Thereafter the opposite party written a letter dated 14.6.2013 to the complainant to clarify your position on the point of fake driving license but the complainant did not respond. Thereafter on 26.6.2013 the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant due to fake driving license of Mr.Balkar Singh the alleged driver of the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4. Sh.Pawan Sharma Special Power of Attorney of complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1-/A and of Er.Rohit Kapoor Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer Ex.CW2/A along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C1 to Ex C15 and closed the evidence.

5. On the other hand, Sh.Subhash Chander AO NIC Ltd. of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 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 Truck Accident Insurance Claim vides repudiation letter Ex.C11/ Ex.OP7/OP8 dated 26.06.2013 for of the Fake Driving License as the prime reason as addressed therein. The OP insurers have produced Ex.OP6 the Fake D.L. Confirmation/Verification report dated 12.06.2013 as submitted by the Investigator/Surveyor but not supported by the requisite deposition etc whereas the complainant has produced the duly deposed affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Er. Rohit Kapoor confirming the correctness/genuineness Ex.C12 of the D.L. along with the confirmations Ex.C14 & Ex.C15 by the respective DTOs Amritsar/Tarn taran and that duly proves the validity of the Driving License of the Driver driving the Tripper Truck at the time of accident on 02.02.2012. The non-admittance of the DTOs (D.L. issuing authorities) above confirmations Ex.C14 & C15 amount to adoption of ‘unfair trade practices’ and the delay of more than one year in conveying its ‘repudiation’ on 26.06.2013 (date of accident being 02.02.2012) clearly amount to deficiency in service. The below-referred decisions of the Hon’ble superior courts i) NCDRC in RP # 1573 of 2014 titled: Meena Devi jain vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. & Ors., ii) apex court in civil appeal # 8276 of 2009 titled: Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance company & iii) Delhi High court in MAC APP 732 of 2006 titled: Oriental Insurance Company vs. Biro & Devi & Ors; confirm and approve the above stated legal propositions. Further, we find that the accidented vehicle was comprehensively insured (policy Ex.C2) with the OP insurers & the repair bills as carried out by the complainant (Ex.C4 to Ex.C10) amounting to Rs.3,86,575/- has been contested/rebutted by the OP insurers only on the basis of assessment made by their own authorized surveyor. The OP’s Surveyors Reports Ex.OP3, Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5 do not quantify and/or rebut the complainant’s repair costs. Somehow, the OP insurers during the course of arguments produced surveyor’s repair cost estimates for the alleged amount of Rs.1,42,192.07 p sans any deposition and also the D.L. Reports procured vides RTI application that could not be accepted/exhibited/ marked as exhibits on the proceedings’ records at that stage for consideration etc. As such, the OP insurers are held liable to pay/ reimburse at least the repair costs as assessed by their surveyor. Finally, we hold the OP insurers guilty of infringement of complainant’s consumer rights through ‘unfair trade practice’ amounting to ‘deficiency in service’ and that makes them liable to an adverse award under the Act.

7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to pay the impugned Claim in question as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.142192.07 alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 26.06.2013 till actual payment to the complainant besides to pay him Rs 10,000/- as compensation (inclusive of cost of litigation) for delay in final decision of insurance claim within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders failing which proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the OP.

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)

December 9, 2015                                                                      Member

*MK*