The present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') by the complainant Kuldeep Singh prays for the necessary directions to the opposite party to  pay Rs.2,96,294 difference and Rs.35,000/- as toeing charges alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of accident till its realization.  Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.1,30,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and financial loss to him alongwith Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a comprehensive insurance policy for his truck no.PB-06-V-6581 Model 2015Make Tata from the opposite party and the declare value of the said vehicle as Rs.22,00,000/- i.e. IDV and paid the premium of Rs.47,452/- to the opposite party. The opposite party issued motor commercial vehicle bearing policy no.105010/31/17/00/4138valid from 29.7.2016 to 28.7.2017 midnight. The truck met with an accident on 30.1.2017 at Aligarh Bye-pass (U.P.) and to this effect police report was registered at Police station Ghabana District Aligarh. Harpreet Singh driver of the abovesaid truck immediately informed him and he immediately registered the accident at the Toll Free number of the opposite party, who appointed Mr.Mikin Singhal Surveyor to conduct the spot survey at Aligarh (U.P.) and after the spot survey on the advice of the spot surveyor, he brought the accidental truck from Aligarh to Moga, Punjab for its repair. All the photocopies of the documents of the truck and driving license of Harpreet Singh to the spot surveyor by Harpreet Singh Driver. He brought the damaged truck to Moga for its repair by toeing from District Aligarh to UP at Moga the opposite party appointed Mr. Gopal Kotia, Surveyor to inspect the damaged truck and to access the own Damage Loss occurred to the truck. He spent Rs.35,000/- to bring the damaged truck to Moga for repairs as toeing charges. He again submitted all the documents of the truck, driving license of the driver Harpreet Singh and estimates of repair to the final surveyor. He has further pleaded that all the original estimates and bills are with the opposite party and he spent Rs.5,14,621/- on the repair of the truck. To his utter surprise, the opposite party transferred Rs.2,18,383/- in the account no.22080100000  2724 maintained by him without giving any details of the assessed loss.  He served a legal notice dated 18.5.2017 through his counsel to the opposite party to pay the difference of the repair bills i.e. Rs.2,96,294/- plus Rs.35,000/- as toeing charges but till today the opposite party have not paid any heed to the legal notice and did not pay the difference of the actual repair amount spent by him. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

 3.        Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company; there is no liability the insurance company. The Insurance Company has already paid Rs.2,18,000/- as per surveyor report. Actually, the vehicle has been duly surveyed by the surveyor. After physically verifying each and every damaged part, the surveyor submitted his report and as such the payment of Rs.2,18,000/- has been duly made to the complainant. On merits, it was submitted that the liability of the insurance company is only as per terms and conditions of the policy. The surveyor has been duly appointed and after survey the vehicle has duly submitted his report. The claim amount as per terms and conditions has been duly paid.   The complainant after receiving the claim has no right to file the present complaint. 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 Ex.CW1/A and of Harpreet Singh Ex.C-58, alongwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22, Photographs Ex.C-23 to Ex.C-54  and other documents Ex.C-55 to Ex.C-57  and closed the evidence. 

5.          Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Shailesh Jindal Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.          We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for that ignored to be produced) to determine their respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by their learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint.

7.       We find that the present dispute had prompted at the OP insurer’s duly admitted partially-settled arbitrary payment in full & final settlement of the complainant’s accident insurance claim of the insured Truck-Trailer Tata vehicle that had gone damaged in a Road Side Accident on 30.01.2017. Incidentally, the accidental-repairs are alleged to have cost Rs.5,14,621/- to the complainant besides Rs.35,000/- as towing fees from the accident-site to the repairs-site; whereas the OP insurers have settled the disputed claim presumably in full and final settlement of the disputed claim vide an impugned credit of Rs.2,18,383/- as afforded in the complainant’s bank account sans his prior consent and/or pre-notice/post-intimation etc but to suffice prompt to the instant complaint. We observe that the present complainant has been successful in sufficiently and satisfactorily proving the contents of his allegation-contented complaint vide the depositions (affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.C58) and the other evidentiary documents (Ex.C1 to Ex.C57).

8.       On the other hand, the OP insurers have simply filed its lone affidavit deposing that the complainant’s estimates/repair bills have been intentionally put at Rs.5,14,621/- on the higher side but the accident-claim has been justifiably settled and paid for the credited amount of Rs.2,18,383/- in terms of their designated Surveyor’s assessment of loss incurred on account of the instant road side accident. We observe that the OP insurers here have somehow failed to produce any evidentiary documents in support of its asserted claim of one just and fair settlement for reasons best known to them alone. Neither the Surveyor’s deposition nor the loss assessment estimates were produced on records by the insurers and that fails their claim of a fair and just settlement of the impugned insurance claim rather indicates of adoption of unfair trade practices amounting to deficiency in service on their part and thus rake them up to an adverse statutory award under the applicable Act. Moreover, the OP insurers have also failed to produce the surveyor’s deposition and/or other supporting evidence to prove that the damage/loss incurred to the vehicle has not been an outcome of the Road Side Accident alleged to have occurred on 30.01.2017.

9.        Thus, we find that the impugned settlement of the instant insurance claim for a reduced amount, at the hands of the OP insurers certainly infringes the consumer rights of the complainant all the more so at the face of their own inadvertent mistaken interpretation of the applicable governing law. Presently, we find that the OP insurers have not been able to justify the impugned ‘claim-settlement’ and did not even attempt to revise the ‘claim’ upward as of ‘now’ during the ‘pendency’ of the present complaint to show/exhibit its bona fide intentions but it chose otherwise and thus we hold it guilty of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practices’ etc.

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly accept the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Insurers to pay the full amount of the impugned claim (under the related Policy) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation besides Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation, otherwise the aggregate award amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present orders till actually paid.  

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

                                                                                (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President   

Announced:                                                          (Jagdeep Kaur)       

July,23 2018                                                               Member

*MK*