Present:       Sh. Navin Kumar Palta, Advocate, Counsel for complainant.

       Sh. Ajay Gulati, Advocate, Counsel for opposite parties. 

1.                The Complainant filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.17,20,206/- on account of loss of truck bearing registration no.PB-29M-8595 along with compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                The complainant pleaded that he is owner of Eicher truck 40.40 bearing registration no.PB-29M-8595 which was insured with the OPs for the period from 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016. The said truck met with an accident on 13.06.2015, they duly intimate regarding this accident to OPs. The OPs appointed Sh. R.P. Gupta & Company Surveyors to assess the loss. The Surveyor prepared his report in which he assessed the loss of Rs.5,98,463/- of truck and Rs.2.50,000/- of trolla total Rs.8,48,463/-. The said report is totally wrong and illegal and unjust and liable to be set aside because the loss of the engine has not been mentioned in the said report. He submitted that when they took the said vehicle for repair to the authorized dealer of the Eicher Company and after removal the cabin, they found that engine of the truck was also damaged due to accident and they prepared repair estimate for engine to the tune of Rs.8,71,743/-. Complainant submitted the supplementary repair estimate prepared by the Service Station to the OPs, but to no effect. They did not consider the supplementary estimate and not asses the loss of the engine. The complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.17,20,206/- on account of loss of truck and trolla and damages to the engine.

3.                Notice to the present complaint issued to the OPs who appeared in this Forum and filed their written reply. The OPs took preliminary objections that the present complaint is premature as the alleged claim is still under process of answering Assurance company. On the intimation of the accident the Ops appointed independent and impartial Surveyor to assess the loss who in his report submitted that the reason of over loaded vehicle resulted into the cause of accident and alleged loss to the engine is result of an afterthought which has been found as imaginary loss and therefore as per terms and conditions of the policy, the alleged claim is not payable. The report of surveyor is right and genuine and speaking one, the report of the surveyor is authentic document and which is binding upon both the parties as per law. The alleged supplementary estimate submitted by the complainant subsequently qua the alleged loss to engine was also inquired by the Surveyor and in the surveyor's report as mentioned that it was observed that the supplementary estimate was an afterthought and imaginary only as the dealer also could not have inspected the engine to be a total loss as demanded in supplementary estimate. Even the vehicle was taken away by the owner without any repair from the dealer and due to non-cooperative behaviour of the complainant, the Surveyor pointed out the non-submission of claim papers and not doing repairs to the vehicle nor replying to our letters amounts to violations of the conditions of the policy that renders the claim liable to be repudiated. Further the Surveyor found that cause of accident was due to overloading of the vehicle which is a violation of terms and conditions.

4.                The proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their case given to both the parties. Now, the case is fixed for arguments. Again the Counsel for the OPs submitted that the present complaint is premature as the claim of the complainant is not decided by the OPs neither they rejected nor they accepted the claim and still is under process due to non co-operation of the complainant and for not submitting of the necessary documents which are required for the decision of the claim.

5.                We have thoroughly gone through the file. The opposite parties produced letters issued by R.P. Gupta and Company surveyor to complainant. He mentioned that as the engine is covered by cabin and it cannot be inspected and assessed the loss to the engine without dismantling the vehicle. So, the loss to vehicle cannot be assessed without it and also required certain documents from the complainant for deciding their claim. The claim of the complainant is still pending for the decision of the opposite parties, so in these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage the present complaint is premature, as the claim is still pending for decision. The opposite parties have not decided his claim on merit, so the present complaint is dismissed being premature. The opposite parties are directed to re-inspect and re-assess the loss to the vehicle of the complainant and its engine after dismantling it. The complainant is also directed to provide the vehicle for re-inspection and re-assessment of the loss to be vehicle and engine after dismantling the same. He is further directed to furnish all the documents necessary for processing of his claim to the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to decide the claim of the complainant within 60 days, after submitting all the documents required to them for processing the claim of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on same cause of action, if he does not feel satisfied from the decision of the opposite parties Insurance Company. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 21.06.2016