DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 311 of 2.11.2007 Decided on : 10.3.2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> Gurjeet Singh S/o Pal Singh, Sole Proprietor of M/s. National Transport Company (Registered), Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Chairman/Managing Director.<br /> 2.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 3.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Grover Building, Old Post Office Chowk, Malout-151107 through its Branch Manager.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate<br /> For the opposite party : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 2,31,779/- on account of damage sustained to vehicle No. PB 30A-6075; Rs. 1,90,000/- as compensation on account of loss , damage, mental agony and harassment alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of accident till realization, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Factual matrix of the version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself may be stated as under :-<br /> He is the owner of Bus No. PB-30A-6075. He was plying it for the purpose of his self employment and earning his livelihood under the name and style of M/s. National Transport Company, Rampura Phul of which he is the Sole Proprietor. This Bus was got comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide Policy No. 360603/31/04.02444 dated 25.4.2005. Policy was effective from 25.4.2005 to 11.2.2006. On 30.8.2005, this vehicle had met with an accident near Bus Stand village Natho Ke within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga as a result of which extensive damage was caused to it. Matter was reported to the police. Daily Diary Report No. 20 dated 1.9.2005 was recorded in Police Station Bagha Purana. Incident and damage to the vehicle was reported to opposite party No. 3 which had appointed its Surveyor for spot survey. Vehicle was inspected by him at the site. Requisite documents demanded by the opposite parties for settlement of the claim were also submitted i.e. the Driving Licence, Registration Certificate, Insurance Policy, Estimate of the repair charges likely to be incurred and copies of the Daily Diary Reports etc. Assurance was given that claim would be settled within a short span of time. Instead of settling the claim, letter dated 18.5.2006 was issued by the opposite parties alleging that the names of the Driver mentioned in the Daily Diary Report and submitted before them were different. Clarification was sought on this point. Reply of this letter was given vide letter dated 25.5.2006 intimating that names of the Driver of the Bus reflected in the Daily Diary Report and submitted to them were of one and the same person as he is known of two names i.e. Amar Singh alias Baaz Singh. An affidavit to this effect was also submitted before them as well as Police Station Bagha Purana. Matter regarding the name was investigated by the police authorities and his contention has been found correct. Daily Diary Report No. 4 dated 13.6.2006 has been recorded in continuation of previous Daily Diary Report No. 20 dated 1.9.2005. He (complainant) got his vehicle repaired from authorised service station i.e. M/s. Gobind Motors, Barnala Road, Bhadaur. Body of this vehicle was extensively damaged. Accordingly, it was got replaced by another body from M/s. India Body Builders, Barnala Road, Bhadaur after purchasing the same from Gursewak Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, resident of Rampura Phul for a consideration of Rs. 1,52,000/-. Charges for other parts as well as costs towards labour were also paid to M/s. Gobind Motors which had issued bill No. 38 dated 27.5.2006 for Rs. 32,573/-. A sum of Rs. 17,006/- was also paid by him to M/s. India Body Builder which had issued bill No. 6 dated 5.7.2006. Battery worth Rs. 5,700/- was also purchased from M/s. National Armatures vide bill No. 26 dated 28.5.2006. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 22,000/- (Approx.) has been incurred by him on repair and replacement of Dash Board and Rs. 2,500/- on handling and transportation of the vehicle. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 2,31,779/- has been incurred by him towards repair of the vehicle. After repairs, vehicle was got inspected by the opposite parties. Despite the fact that everything has been done by him, opposite parties have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 23.10.2006 illegally and arbitrarily. They have falsely alleged that non receipt of the clarification from him regarding the name of the Driver in the Daily Diary Report. It is averred by him that he has duly submitted the Daily Diary Report dated 13.6.2006 and the clarification vide letter dated 25.5.2006. Opposite parties have hypothetically and frivolously alleged the concealment of facts. They cannot seek any benefit, particularly when Driver was having valid Driving Licence. Representation dated 17.8.2007 made by him to opposite party No. 3 for settling the claim has proved futile. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. M/s. P.K Finance Limited, Jalandhar with which vehicle has been allegedly financed; this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint as accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of District Moga and claim has been repudiated by their Malout office; complicated questions of facts and law are involved which require voluminous documents and evidence and as such, appropriate remedy, if any, lies in the Civil Court; complainant has concealed material facts; policy was obtained for commercial purposes; complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, there is no specific denial regarding the fact that complainant is running the bus under the name and style of M/s. National Transport Company for the purpose of his self employment and earning his livelihood. Similarly, there is no denial about the comprehensive insurance of the Bus with them for the period from 25.4.2005 to 11.2.2006. They admit that this vehicle had met with an accident and intimation was given to opposite party No. 3. They deny that it was extensively damaged. Daily Diary Report no. 20 dated 1.9.2005 was recorded in Police Station Bagha Purana. Surveyor was deputed for conducting the survey and assessing the loss. They deny that requisite documents demanded by them were submitted for settlement of the claim. Letter dated 18.5.2006 was issued by them. Other letters dated 24.3.2006 and 7.4.2006 were also issued calling upon him to clarify the position about the name of the Driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As per Claim Form, the name of the Driver was alleged to be Amar Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh, whereas as per Daily Diary Report No. 20 dated 1.9.2005, the name of the Driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was Baaz Singh. Complainant could not clarify the position. They deny that the names of the Driver mentioned in the Daily Diary Report and submitted by the complainant to them are of one and the same person or that Amar Singh was also known as Baaz Singh. False affidavit was submitted in the Police Station on the basis of which Daily Diary Report No. 4 dated 13.6.2006 was recorded. Police Authorities are not competent to declare that Amar Singh is known by two names. Body of the Bus after repairs while mounting had fallen down and damaged. Only thereafter, he (complainant) got replaced the body. Original body was repairable. Accordingly, it was repaired. Complainant had submitted estimate of Gobind Motors, Bhadaur dated 6.9.2005 of Rs. 1,51,910/-. Vehicle is of the manufacturing year of 1998. Accident had taken place in the year, 2005. Accordingly, M/s. R.P Bhasin & Company, Ludhiana, Surveyors & Loss Assessors assessed the loss as per terms and conditions of the policy and Indian Motor Tariff at Rs. 85,111/-. Loss was assessed after applying depreciation as per provisions of the policy and Indian Motor Tariff. Surveyor has pointed out that at the time of accident the name of the driver is Amar Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, but as per Daily Diary Report, his name is Baaz Singh resident of Rampura. Further as per copy of the passenger list supplied, the name of the driver is Jagraj Singh. They deny that a sum of Rs. 2,31,779/- has been incurred by the complainant for repair of the vehicle. Since, complainant did not clarify the position regarding the actual person driving the vehicle, they had deputed Ex-Major S.C Bansal Investigator, Bathinda to investigate the matter. He recorded the statements of Raj Pal Singh and Conductor Jasbir Singh and submitted detailed investigation report dated 4.10.2006 which clearly establishes that vehicle was not driven by Amar Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, resident of Badbar, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. Rather, it was being driven by Raj Pal Singh S/o Sadhu Singh, resident of Farid Nagar, Street No. 3, Rampura Phul. During investigation, Raj Pal Singh suffered statement that he was driving the Bus on 30.8.2005 at the time of accident. He had also suffered fracture of his left leg and right foot. He was not admitted in any Government Hospital to avoid legal complications as he had no authorised driving licence with him to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle. He was treated by local Orthopaedician at Nihal Singh Wala. Presently, he is driving another Bus No. PB-04-1058 of Roop Kamal Bus Service. Contract of insurance is of utmost good faith and complainant has concocted false story in order to get own damage from them. There is difference of residence and father's name of Amar Singh and Raj Pal Singh. Letter dated 12.10.2006 was issued to the complainant. Complainant failed to clarify the position. Accordingly, claim was rightly closed as no claim vide letter dated 23.10.2006. They deny deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurjeet Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.22), affidavits (Ex.C.16 & Ex.C.23) of S/Sh. Gursewak Singh & Avtar Singh respectively, photocopies of letters (Ex.C.2, Ex.C.10, Ex.C.12, Ex.C.13, Ex.C.20 & Ex.C.21) respectively, photocopies of Courier Receipts (Ex.C.3 & Ex.C.11), photocopy of bill dated 28.5.2006 (Ex.C.4), photocopies of invoices (Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.8), photocopies of receipts (Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7), photocopy of verification report of driving licence of Amar Singh (Ex.C.9), photocopies of Daily Diary Reports (Ex.C.14 & Ex.C.15), photocopy of driving licence of Amar Singh (Ex.C.17), photocopy of policy (Ex.C.18), photocopies of two pages of Ledger (Ex.C.19) and photocopy of certificate (Ex.C.24).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.1, Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. P.K. Jain, Senior Divisional Manager, R.P. Bhasin, Surveyor & Ex. Major S.C. Bansal, Investigator respectively, photocopy of claim form (Ex.R.4), photocopy of Passenger Ticket List (Ex.R.5), photocopy of Repair Estimate (Ex.R.6), photocopies of letters dated 24.3.2006, 7.4.2006, 18.5.2006 & 12.10.2006 (Ex.R.7 to Ex.R.10 respectively), photocopy of Final Motor Survey Report (Ex.R.11 & Ex.R.12), photocopies of photographs (Ex.R.13 to Ex.R.30), photocopy of Investigation Report (Ex.R.31), photocopy of reply to the application dated 17.8.2007 of the complainant (Ex.C.32), photocopy of statement of Rajpal Singh (Ex.R.33), photocopy of Survey Report dated 10.2.2005 (Ex.R.34) & photocopies of photographs (Ex.R.35 to Ex.R.47).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the opposite parties.<br /> 7. One of the objections taken by the opposite parties is that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint as the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of District Moga and claim has been repudiated by their Malout office which is within the jurisdiction of District Muktsar. <br /> 8. After considering this submission, we do not feel ourselves inclined to accept it. In para No. 2 of the complaint, complainant has made it clear that opposite party No. 1 has its Head Office at Mumbai. It is having its Regional, Divisional and Branch Offices throughout India. It is operating and carrying on business through these offices. Likewise, opposite party No. 1 is operating through opposite parties No. 2 & 3 being the Divisional and Branch Offices respectively. Opposite party No 3 is carrying out all its activities under the direct supervision of opposite party No. 2 being the Divisional Office at Bathinda. Settlement of the claim was to be made by opposite party No. 2. This has not been repudiated by the opposite parties. The office of opposite party No. 2 is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Repudiation letter, copy of which is Ex.C.10, was communicated to the complainant at Rampura. Entire correspondence has taken place at Rampura i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Forum. In these circumstances, this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. For this, we get support from the authorities New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H.J.S Bhatia-III(2003)CPJ-212, M/s. Kakar Steel Forgings Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited-2001( 1 )CLT-569, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Kewal Krishan Kampani-I(2007)CPJ-34, Harinder Kumar Hari Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another-II(1998)CPJ-91, Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited-1999 JRC-241, L.N Tiku Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited-2001(2)CPR-415 and Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Vs. M.L. Bhat & Another-II(1997)CPJ-64. In view of these authorities, evidence on the record and the fact that part of the cause of action has arisen within District Bathinda, this Forum is competent to entertain and decide this complaint. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that instant policy was obtained for commercial purpose and as such, complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. This argument is not tenable. Hiring of services of Insurance Company by a person who carries on commercial activities cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. Policy is taken for reimbursement or indemnity for loss which may be suffered due to various perils. Policy is only for indemnification of actual loss and is not intended to generate profit. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.-I(2005)CPJ-27 (N.C.). Accordingly, we hold that this complaint against the opposite parties is maintainable as policy has been obtained for reimbursement or indemnity for loss which could be suffered by the complainant during the period for which it was issued.<br /> 10. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the opposite parties vociferously argued that complainant has concealed material facts and has changed the driver. He (complainant) claims that at the time of alleged accident Bus was being driven by Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh, R/o Badbar. In the DDR dated 1.9.2005,copy of which is Ex.C.14, the name of the driver has been recorded as Baaz Singh. Ex.R.5 is the copy of Passenger Ticket List in which the name of the driver has been recorded as Jugraj Singh. In another DDR dated 13.6.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.15, the name of the driver has been recorded as Baaz Singh alias Amar Singh. Police Authorities are nobody to declare that any body is known by two names. Second DDR, copy of which is Ex.C.15, has been lodged on the basis of the affidavit after nine months. Opposite parties had called upon the complainant to clarify the position vide letters, copies of which are Ex.R.7 to Ex.R.9, but to no effect. Surveyor Sh. R.P Bhasin vide report, copies of which are Ex.R.11 & Ex.R.12, has pointed out this fact. Accordingly, Investigator was appointed. Ex Major S.C. Bansal conducted an independent investigation and copy of his report is Ex.R.31 which is duly supported by his affidavit Ex.R.3 alongwith statement of Raj Pal Singh who was actually driving the Bus at the time of accident. Copy of the statement of Raj Pal Singh duly witnessed by Jasvir Singh as alleged by the Investigator is Ex.R.33. From the investigation, it is clear that Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh is resident of Badbar and Raj Pal Singh S/o Sadhu Singh is resident of Farid Nagar, Rampura and that they are two different persons and they are not one and the same person as alleged by the complainant. He further argued that evidence on the record establishes that Bus was being driven by Raj Pal Singh S/o Sadhu Singh resident of Farid Nagar, Rampura and not by Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh resident of Badbar. There is difference of names, father's names as well as addresses of the two. He further submitted that Ex.C.9 is the copy of the application of Amar Singh moved to the DTO, Sangrur wherein he has given his address as resident of Badbar. He has got verification of his driving licence on 14.9.2006. In the DDR dated 13.6.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.15, Amar Singh has shown himself to be now resident of Rampura. Raj Pal Singh S/o Sadhu Singh was not having any driving licence. Evidence of the opposite parties regarding concealment of actual and true Driver has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. The decision in Swaran's Singh case (2004(3)SCC-297) has no application to a case other than third party risk as has been held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut-2007(2)CLT-186. Application of good faith applies equally to the insurer and the insured as per observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J Corporation-1997(1)S.L.J-654.<br /> 11. Mr. Baghla, learned counsel for the complainant argued that claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 23.10.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.10, alleging that driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident was Raj Pal Singh instead of Amar Singh. He further argued that complainant did not conceal anything from the opposite parties. They have concocted an afterthought story by procuring one person in order to repudiate the genuine and bonafide claim of the complainant.<br /> 12. We have considered the respective arguments. Complainant reiterates his version in the complaint in his affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.22. Plea of the complainant is that Amar Singh is known by two names i.e. Amar Singh @ Baaz Singh. In the DDR, copy of which is Ex.C.14, which was recorded on the basis of one Jagdish Chand on 1.9.2005 in Police Station Bagha Purana, name of the driver of the Bus has been recorded as Baaz Singh. Jagdish Chand was one of the passengers in the Bus. There is no evidence that Jagdish Chand S/o Sukhdev Singh R/o Bilaspur knew the driver of the Bus personally. As per version of the complainant, Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh had submitted his affidavit before the police stating that he is also known by his short names Raj Singh & Baaz Singh and matter was investigated by ASI Bhag Mal. He came to the conclusion that contents of the affidavit are correct. Accordingly, DDR dated 13.6.2006 was recorded. There is no rebuttal evidence of the opposite parties that Amar Singh is not known by two names. Opposite parties wrote letter dated 18.5.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.13, seeking clarification about the name of the driver. There is reference of two other letters dated 24.3.2006 and 7.4.2006 in this letter. Complainant does not admit that letters dated 24.3.2006 and 7.4.2006 were received by him. Even if it is taken that these two letters were also sent, even then complainant replied the letter, copy of which is Ex.C.13, by way of giving clarification through letter, copy of which is Ex.C.12, intimating that Amar Singh S/o Sohan is also known as Baaz Singh. Alongwith the clarification, copy of the affidavit was also sent by him to the Branch Manager of the opposite insurance company. Copies of both the DDR were also submitted before the Investigator as is clear from Ex.R.31. Fact clarified by the complainant about the names of Amar Singh has not been agitated by the opposite parties thereafter, in the letters dated 29.6.2006 and 24.7.2006, copies of which are Ex.20 and Ex.C.21 respectively. Through these letters, they sought some documents i.e. driving licence, load challan, bills of repairs, stamped receipt, cash memos and re-inspection of the vehicle by the Surveyor. No objection was raised by them in these letters regarding the clarification given about the names of Amar Singh. It means they were satisfied that Amar Singh is known by another name Baaz Singh. There were 35 passengers in the Bus as reported by the Surveyor in his Survey Report, copy of which is Ex.R.34. There is no statement of any passenger that Amar Singh was not the driver of the Bus in question. Opposite parties did not deem it fit to approach the police authorities regarding the name of the driver of the Bus. It is not a case where police authorities declared simply on the basis of the affidavit that Amar Singh is known by two names. Rather after verification contents of the affidavit were found correct by ASI Bhag Mal. Opposite parties could examine Bhag Mal ASI if they had doubt about the verification made by him. Contention of the opposite parties that complainant did not clarify the position on the basis of the letters issued by them, copies of which are Ex.R.7 to Ex.R.9, is not acceptable as clarification was furnished by him through letter, copy of which is Ex.C.12 which has been discussed above. Complainant does not allege that Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh resident of Badbar and Raj Pal Singh resident of Farid Nagar, Rampura are one of the same person. In his affidavit Ex.C.22, complainant has repudiated the allegation of the opposite parties that Bus in question was being driven by Sh. Raj Pal Singh S/o Sadhu Singh at the time of accident. He has gone to the extent of stating that he was not the driver of the Bus in question and that version of the opposite parties is an afterthought and concocted one. It being so, the argument of the opposite parties that complainant has alleged Amar Singh and Raj Pal Singh are one of the same persons is without any basis. There is not an iota of evidence to show the connection of Raj Pal Singh with the complainant as driver of the Bus except the copy of his statement Ex.R.33 allegedly recorded by Sh. S.C Bansal, Investigator. Mere fact that Sh. S.C Bansal has submitted his affidavit Ex.R.3 that during investigation Sh. Raj Pal Singh has suffered statement does not advance the cause of the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal in the case of Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-2003(I)CPR-318 in which has been held that claim cannot be repudiated merely on the basis of investigation report and affidavit filed by the Investigator as report of Investigator is no evidence unless statements recorded during investigation are proved. Affidavits of Raj Pal Singh and Jasvir Singh have not been placed and proved on record by the opposite parties. It is well settled that evidence collected during investigation cannot be looked into unless the material collected during investigation is translated into legal evidence. For this reference can also be made to the authorities Virendra Vs. State of Delhi-(1993)3 JT(SC) 31 and Kaptan Singh Vs. State of M.P-AIR-1997 SC-2485. Link as to from where Investigator came to know that Bus was being driven by Rajpal and on its basis, he recorded his statement is also missing. Opposite parties are relying upon the copy (Ex.R.33) of the statement alleged to be of Raj Pal Singh according to which his left leg and right foot were fractured in the accident and that he got the treatment from private doctor of Nihal Singh Wala. There is no document regarding his medical treatment. Opposite parties could produce the affidavit of the private doctor from whom alleged Raj Pal Singh had received treatment. Evidence to this effect is lacking. Repudiation is on the basis of the report of the Investigator that Rajpal Singh was driving the Bus at the time of accident instead of Amar Singh. In the report, copy of which is Ex.R.31, Sh. S.C Bansal, Investigator has recorded that Sh. Gurjeet Singh had met him on 30.9.2006 and had accepted the facts given in the report and confirmed verbally that driver Raj Pal Singh was driving the Bus at the time of accident. Investigator did not deem it fit to record his statement. No remarks have been given by him that he had refused to give statement. In these circumstances, it appears that report has been given at the back of the complainant. Its basis is the statement of alleged Raj Pal Singh which has not been proved by sworn affidavit. Hence, repudiation on the ground that Raj Pal Singh was driving Bus is not justified. Ex.R.34 is the copy of the spot survey report. Surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties. In this document, the name of the driver has been recorded as Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh. Not to speak of this, spot surveyor went to the extent of observing that in the accident driver Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh was injured. In the copy of the final survey report as well, Sh. R.P Bhasin and Company Surveyors & Assessors have also recorded the name of the driver as Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh who was injured. No-doubt, in the application dated 14.9.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.9, Amar Singh has recorded himself as son of Sohan Singh, resident of Badbar, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur, whereas in the affidavit submitted before the police, he got recorded himself as son of Sohan Singh, resident of Badbar and now Rampura Phul, this would assume no significance. Had he made the request for verification of his licence to the District Transport Officer at his present address of Rampura Phul, he might not have been able to get it as verification was to be given as per his old address of Badbar. Accordingly, it was given by the District Transport Officer according to which licence of Amar Singh, copy of which is Ex.C.17, is valid from 11.10.2005 to 10.10.2008 and it is for LMV/HMV. Merely on the basis of the address given in the application dated 14.9.2006, opposite parties cannot drive any benefit and say that Bus was not being driven by him and it was being driven by Sh. Raj Pal Singh. Facts and circumstances do not establish that complainant concealed facts from the opposite parties in respect of the driver's name. Matter has already been clarified by him that Amar Singh is also known by by another name Baaz Singh. Evidence proves that Bus was being driven by Amar Singh. He was having valid driving licence. With utmost regard and humility to the authority relied upon by the opposite parties i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut & United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. M.K.J Corporation, they are distinguishable. Opposite parties sought the production of some documents through letters, copies of which are Ex.C.20 and Ex.C.21. They are dated 29.6.2006 and 24.7.2006. Careful perusal of the evidence reveals that documents were already submitted. Ex.R.11 and Ex.R.12 are the copies of the report dated 12.3.2006 of Surveyors and Loss Assessors. Such report is made after receiving the documents. Place of survey of the vehicle has been recorded as M/s. India Body Builder, Bhadaur. Survey was conducted by the Surveyors on 16.9.2005. Vehicle was inspected. In such a situation, letters Ex.C.20 and Ex.C.21 appear to have been issued merely to delay the claim. Surveyors assessed the loss after receiving estimated bills, necessary information and<br /> <br /> taking all the relevant facts into consideration. Concealment of facts regarding the name of the driver and the allegation that Raj Pal Singh was driving the Bus are not established. Accordingly, repudiation of the claim made by the opposite parties through letter dated 23.10.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.10, is illegal and unjustified. It is, therefore, set aside leading to deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 13. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that opposite parties have wrongly reduced the claim submitted by the complainant. A perusal of Ex.R.34 reveals that body of the vehicle was found completely damaged at the time of spot survey. Even Surveyors R.P Bhasin & Company have observed that body of the Bus was replaced with the second hand Body. Body was purchased for Rs. 1,52,000/- from one Gursewak Singh through receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.6. Despite this, claim regarding the body has not been allowed. He also drew our attention to affidavit Ex.C.23 of Sh. Avtar Singh, Proprietor of M/s. India Body Builder, Bhadaur who has stated that body was beyond repairs. Accordingly, complainant was advised replacement of the body. His next contention is that complainant is entitled to the estimate of M/s. India Body Builder shown by the Surveyor in the report, copy of which is Ex.R.11 & Ex.R.12 as well as to Rs. 1,52,000/- for the body purchased from Sh. Gursewak Singh. <br /> 14. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered these arguments by submitting that complainant cannot go out of his averments in the complaint. He cannot claim double benefits. Report of the Surveyor is detailed one and Surveyor has touched all the pros and cones and has applied the depreciation as per terms and conditions of the policy and India Motor Tariff. Thereafter, loss/damage has been assessed as Rs. 85,111.25.<br /> 15. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel<br /> <br /> ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Complainant claims loss/damage to the Bus to the tune of Rs.2,31,779/-. The details of this amount have been given in para no. 7 of the complaint. He has brought on record the receipts/documents for damage to the extent of Rs. 2,07,279/-. So far as the affidavit Ex.C.23 is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.2 of Sh. R.P Bhasin, Surveyor & Loss Assessor according to which depreciation was applied as per terms and conditions of the policy and India Motor Tariff. Body of the Bus was repaired. It had fallen down while mounting. Original body was repairable and was repaired. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to produce any document that before purchasing the second hand body and getting it fitted, notice was served upon the opposite parties saying that he is purchasing the second hand body from Gursewak Singh for a consideration of Rs. 1,52,000/- and is selling the removed body to India Body Builder for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. Complainant cannot come out of his averments in the complaint by saying that he is entitled to Rs. 1,52,000/- for the second hand body purchased and for the amount assessed by R.P Bhasin & Company, Surveyors on the basis of the estimate of India Body Builder. It is not his case that he has spent more than Rs. 2,31,779/-. He has not proved the loss to the extent of Rs.2,31,779/-. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that record produced by him shows the expenditure of Rs. 2,07,279/-. Vehicle was insured for declared value of Rs. 3,01,000/- vide certificate of insurance, copy of which is Ex.C.18. It is of the manufacturing year of 1998. Alleged accident is dated 30.8.2005 i.e. after seven years. Claim is always subject to depreciation as per terms and conditions of the policy and India Motor Tariff. According to India Motor Tariff, if the age of the vehicle exceeds five years but not exceeding ten years, depreciation is 40%. Depreciation for all rubber/nylon/plastic parts, tyres and tubes, batteries<br /> <br /> and air bags is 50%. Opposite parties deputed Mr. Suneet Jain for spot survey which was conducted by him. Damages were noted by him as is clear from his report, copy of which is Ex.R.34. Complainant had submitted the estimate of repairs i.e. Ex.R.6 for Rs. 1,51,910/-. Final survey has been conducted by R.P Bhasin & Company and copy of its report is Ex.R.11 & Ex.R.12. Loss has been assessed as per terms and conditions of the policy and applying the provisions of India Motor Tariff. Mere fact that complainant had replaced the body of his own does not entitle him to the amount i.e. Rs. 1,52,000/- minus Rs. 35,000/- particularly when body was repairable and it was got repaired. Estimates of India Body Builder have been duly considered by the final surveyor. Complainant did not submit any objection to the report of the surveyor regarding the assessment of the loss. So far as battery is concerned, it was repairable and for that a sum of Rs. 1,300/- has been allowed by the Surveyor/Assessor. Report of Surveyor is an important piece of document and evidence. It cannot be brushed aside without sufficient reasons. In the absence of anything to the contrary, Surveyor's report has to be accepted. Surveyor is the best person to assess the loss. We find no sufficient reasons to throw the report of the Surveyor, copy of which is Ex.R.11 & Ex.R.12, to the winds. In this view of the matter, we get support from the authorities New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamal Nayan-2007(1)CLT-112, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Aleyamma Verghese and others-2006(2)CLT-349, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jadhav Kirana Stores-2005(3)CLT-644 and Ajay Gupta, Proprietor, M/s. Punjab Plywoods Vs. Manager, Allahabad Bank and others-2001(2)CLT-55. Accordingly, we accept the report of the Surveyor.<br /> 16. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Opposite parties are required to give decision of the insurance <br /> claim within three months as has been held in the authorities United India<br /> <br /> Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M.K.J Corporation-III(1996)CPJ-8 (SC), M/s Bhagwati Rice Company, Sangrur Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others-2005(1)CPC-479 and Sri Ramesh Khaitan Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others-2004(2)CPC-227. In the facts and circumstances of this case, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to pay him insurance claim regarding the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 85,111/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 1.12.2005 (The date calculated on expiry of three months from the date of intimation of accident, a period required for processing the claim in an effective manner in normal course) till realization. Complainant is craving for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment. There is no case to allow it in the face of the relief going to be accorded as above, particularly in view of the authority in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Bhupinder Kaur(Minor) and others-2000(2)CLT-646 wherein Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab held that interest is not granted within the contract between the insured and insurer, but within the provisions of section 14(1)(d) of the Act on deficiency in rendering service being established for compensating the complainant. Held accordingly.<br /> 17. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments. <br /> 18. In view of the discussion made above, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs. 85,111/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 1.12.2005 till realization.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 19. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also<br /> <br /> consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 10.3.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />