The present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') by the complainant M/s.Jagmohan Mini Rice

Mills Lakhwinder Singh through its Prop. Sh.Surjit Singh son of Chanchal

Singh prays for the necessary directions to the opposite party to pay the claim

amount of  Rs.16,53,222/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of fire

till its realization. The opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-

for mental harassment, agony and deficiency in service alongwith Rs.25,000/-

as litigation expenses to him.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he got his truck bearing registration No.PB-06-Q-3455 make Eicher 3531 comprehensively insured from the opposite party and paid the premium of Rs.45,909/- to the opposite party. The vehicle was insured for the period from 19.6.2013 to midnight of 18.6.2014. Thus, he is consumer. On the intervening night of 2/3 February 2014 his truck caught fire due to short circuit and was completely damaged and was total loss and the car which was standing behind this truck also caught fire and was badly damaged. The matter was immediately reported to the police as well as to the opposite party and DDR was registered in the P.S.Rajori (J & K) and opposite party appointed the Surveyor to inspect the spot. On the asking of the opposite party the repairs estimate from the authorized dealer of Eicher Motor Ltd. i.e. Nav Bharat Motors Jammu was submitted to the opposite party and repair estimate Rs.20,85,968/- was given by the authorised dealer. He has further pleaded that as per the insurance regulations if the loss is 75% or above, it is to be considered as a total loss as the total value for which the above mentioned truck was insured was Rs.16,53,222/-. He completed all the formalities required by him but till date the opposite party has not settled and pay the claim to him. He visited the office of the opposite party many a time and requested them to pay him the claim but they are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. This amount to 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 and no locus standi to file the present complaint;  the complainant is using the truck for commercial purpose as such complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer as provided under Consumer Protection Act; this Ld.Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint and the complaint is premature and there is no  deficiency in service on the part of insurance company. It is next submitted that the vehicle has been duly surveyed by Mr.Munish Swami to assess the loss and the vehicle is in a repairable condition, but the complainant has not started the repair of the vehicle till date and not produced the vehicle for re-inspection. Even the relevant documents also not supplied. The final survey report can only be made if the complainant will get his vehicle repaired. So, it is the complainant who is at fault. The letter dated 28.10.2014, 18.10.2014 and other letters have been sent to the complainant to provide the relevant documents as detailed in the letters and repair the vehicle and to produce it for re-inspection, but the complainant failed to reply these letters and failed to repair the vehicle, due to which the claim has been made No Claim vide letter dated 28.10.2014. On merits, it was submitted that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The truck is in a repairable condition and many letters have been sent to the complainant in this regard to repair the vehicle but the complainant failed to get it repaired. It was further submitted that as per Survey Report the vehicle is not total loss and the loss is less than 75% and the vehicle is in repairable condition but the IDV value, amount of premium etc. the vehicle has been duly surveyed by Mr.Munish Swami to assess the loss and the vehicle is in a repairable condition, but the complainant has not started the repair of the vehicle till date and not produced the vehicle for re-inspection. Even the relevant documents also not supplied. The final survey report can only be made if the complainant will get his vehicle repaired. So, it is the complainant who is at fault. The letter dated 28.10.2014, 18.10.2014 and other letters have been sent to the complainant to provide the relevant documents as detailed in the letters and repair the vehicle and to produce it for re-inspection, but the complainant failed to reply these letters and failed to repair the vehicle, due to which the claim has been made No Claim vide letter dated 28.10.2014.  All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.        Sh.Surjit Singh Proprietor tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. 

5.          Raj Kumar, Branch Manager of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.

6.            The instant Complaint # 185/2017 was first filed on 27.10.2014 with the original allotted index number of 401/2014 by the complainant firm through its proprietor against the opposite party insurers seeking its relief of settlement of the impugned insurance claim of its fire-accidented Trolley Truck Vehicle @ its IDV of Rs 16,53,222/- since the Eicher  Authorized Workshop had assessed the repair estimates @ 20,85,968/- i.e., much above the 75% mark for full IDV settlement as per IRDA norms. However, the opposite party insurers had contested/ rebutted the claim with its surveyor’s report recommending settlement on its repair-basis @ 639,989/- with final repair-estimates to be assessed after the final-repairs.        

7.            Somehow, the consumer forum had partly allowed the then Complaint with its # 401/2014 on 29.06.2015 directing the OP insurers to settle and pay the impugned claim @ its full IDV with cost and compensation within 30 days of orders; And, the opposite party insurers having fallen aggrieved at the above orders preferred the First Appeal # 1006/2015 with the honorable Punjab State Commission, at Chandigarh; who were pleased to set-aside the forum’s orders (vide paragraph ‘7’ of its appellate orders of 15.02.2017) and remanding the case back to the forum for its fresh disposal in accordance with law .

8.      The complainant firm as well as the opposite party insurers in compliance to the above orders of the honorable State Commission appeared on 27.04.2017 before the district forum but somehow twelve nos of adjournments had to be granted as sought by one party or the other (on one count or other) and finally on 20.09.2017, the complainant firm filed its requisite affidavit confirming the compliance of the applicable orders of the honorable state commission. A copy of the so filed complainant’s affidavit was duly supplied to the learned counsel (of the opposite party insurers) who sought adjournment for filing of its counter- affidavit for the requisite purpose of rebuttal etc. Somehow, the opposite party insurers could not go by its assurances of filing of its counter-affidavit that could not be filed even after having sought eight adjournments (for the purpose) till 20.12 2017 when the forum did start hearing the final arguments but in parts as has been put forth by the litigating parties, thus giving sufficient opportunity to both sides to say support their respective claims etc.      

9.         We observe that both the litigating sides have produced their respective documents to adduce their respective evidence to support/ prove their respective allegations, averments and rebuttals etc. The complainant has produced his present deposition dated 20.09.2017 besides the affidavit Ex.Cw1/A deposing his allegations as made out in the complaint; Ex.C2 the copy of DDR (of 2/3.02.2014 night); Ex.C3 the related report of the Fire Brigade, Rajauri, J&K (04.06.2014) and the Ex.C4 Repair estimates (02.08.2014) for Rs.20,85,968/- by Eicher Co Workshop at Jammu and that satisfactorily proves his case as complained, hereinabove to close his evidence.

10.          On the other hand, the OP insurers did neither file the counter affidavit nor did produce any other cogent evidence to prove its surveyor’s report in spite of having availed  many opportunities for the same and that proves that it never had any other cogent evidence to produce in its defense.

11.       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 refusal of the complainant’s total-loss fire-claim settlement at its IDV and instead forcing him to get his damaged vehicle repaired first for conducting the final assessment. We are certainly not convinced with this callous plea as made out by the OP insurers at the face of its ‘unsigned’ Surveyor’s Report (sans the surveyor’s deposition) for whom the damaged Truck has been always available for ‘inspection’ etc and even no other documents were demanded during the present re-adjudication. The OP insurers must understand that the insured do purchase the insurance policies for such types of emergency eventualities and the insurers must stand by them at the time of such-like adverse situations.     

12.     We further find that the complainant has duly submitted all the necessary documents as produced herein on the records of the present proceedings so as to enable the OP insurers to settle the impugned claim. On the other hand, the insurers here have preferred to settle an otherwise a valid claim on the flimsy alibi of surveyor’s report that somehow has stood ‘not proved’ thus entitling the complainant to a favorable statutory award under the applicable law. Thus, we find no truth in the alleged repair-worthiness of the badly damaged fire-accidented vehicle by the opposite party insurers; rather we see it as an adoption of unfair trade practice to reduce/ repudiate an otherwise a valid insurance claim and that rakes them up to an adverse statutory award.

13.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to settle and pay the impugned insurance total-loss fire-accident claim in full to its full IDV (but duly limited by the terms of the related Policy) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint (414/2014) till actual payment besides to pay him Rs.15,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders.   

14.     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)       

January,24 2018                                                        Member

*MK*