Complainants Joga Singh and Satpal Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) to seek a direction to the opposite parties to pass the full claim of Rs.1,05,331/- as mentioned in the bills of the repair as the tractor was fully insured and to pay the balance amount of Rs.57741/- to them with interest @18% P.A. from the date of its due till its realization. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of illegal, negligent and deficiency acts of the opposite parties and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that complainants are the registered owners of Sonalika International Tractor bearing Registration No.PB-18-R-2881 having Chasis No.19491213 and Engine No.194813 and got the tractor fully insured from the opposite party no.2 vide policy No.233804/31/2013/5727 dated 5.3.3013 which was valid from 11.3.2013 to 10.3.2014. They have further pleaded that on 5.2.2014 his tractor was hit by unknown vehicle at G.T.Road, Near Gurdwara Sahib at 8.00 P.M. when their tractor was standing there on the right side of the Road and their tractor was damaged from right side. Complainant no.2 lodged a Rapat No.12 dated 6.2.2014 at Chowki Sekhupur Police Station Sadar Batala. They spent Rs.1,05,331/- on the repair of their tractor from Agency of the Sonalika Tractors at Batala vide bills dated 25.2.2014 of Rs.2200/-  bill dated 26.2.2014 of Rs.9300/- and bill dated 27.2.2014 of Rs.93,831/- but the opposite parties paid only the claim of Rs.47,590/- to the complainants through the Bank Account of the complainant no.2. They requested several times to the opposite parties to pay the whole amount of Rs.1,05,331/- but the opposite parties  passed claim of Rs.47,590/- only. So this illegal act on the part of the opposite parties has caused mental torture, physical and mental harassment. They had been approaching the opposite parties and requesting them to make the balance payment of Rs.57,741/- to the complainants but of no avail. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite parties for filing the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the surveyor has assessed the net loss amounting to Rs.67,641/- and the competent authority after deducting 25% as no spot survey was arranged by the party and the same was not conducted, passed compensation amounting to Rs.47,590/-. The complainant is not legally entitled to the claim of Rs.1,05,331/-. The net loss assessed by the Surveyor is Rs.67,641/- and after making 25% cut in the absence of spot survey which is a policy condition on the face of policy the opposite party has legally passed compensation i.e. Rs.47,590/- and the same was paid to the complainants. The complainant has also given his consent for accepting compensation of Rs.67,641/- to the Surveyor. The complainants has no legal right to ask for balance amount of Rs.57,741/-, as the net loss assessed by the Surveyor is Rs.67,641/-. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4.       Sh.Joga Singh, complainant tendered into evidence his own  affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.  

5.       On the other hand, Sh.Harbans Lal, Branch Manager O.I.C. Batala tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       From the pleadings and evidence on record, it is an admitted case of both the parties that the complainants got their Tractor insured with the opposite party No.2 vide policy No.233804/31/2013/5727 dated 5.3.3013 which was valid from 11.3.2013 to 10.3.2014 and as such is a consumer of the opposite party. It is the case of the complainants that the Tractor was hit by some unknown vehicle on 5.2.2014 and was damaged. The complainant no.2 lodged rapat vide no.12 dated 6.2.2014 at Chowki Shekhupura, Police Station Sadar, Batala. The complainant spent Rs.1,05,331/- on the repairs of their Tractor vide bills dated 25.2.2014 of Rs.2200/-  bill dated 26.2.2014 of Rs.9300/- and bill dated 27.2.2014 of Rs.93,831/- but the opposite party paid Rs.47,590/- only and this act of the opposite party in not paying the balance amount of Rs.57,741/- to the complainants amount to deficiency in service.

8.        On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the surveyor has assessed the net loss amounting to Rs.67,641/-. The competent authority after deducting 25% as no spot survey was arranged by the complainant passed compensation amounting to Rs.47,590/- only and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part.

9.       During the course of arguments the counsel for the complainant challenged the very calculation of Rs.47,590/- by the opposite parties. As per his version even if Rs.67,641/- was assessed as the net loss then after the deduction of 25% being on the basis of no spot survey, it comes to be Rs.50,730/- and not Rs.47,590/- wrongly calculated and paid to the complainant. Hence he is entitled for the difference of Rs.50,730/- - Rs.47,590/- i.e. Rs.3140/-.

10.      The counsel for the opposite parties has also admitted of having paid lesser amount to the complainant. We find that the amount of Rs.67,641/- in question was assessed by the duly appointed surveyor, the report of which is already on the record. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties qua settlement of claim for Rs.67,641/- on the basis of Surveyor report but for wrong calculation of Rs.47,590/- being the final payable amount after 25% deduction instead of Rs.50,730/- certain directions for the payment of balance/difference can be given.

11.       From the entire above discussion, we find that this is a fit case which can be disposed of by giving directions to the parties. Hence we dispose of this complaint by giving directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3140/- being the difference of amount actually to be paid and wrongly paid. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant for litigation expenses. 

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.             

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President     

ANNOUNCED:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

March, 30, 2015.                                                       Member                       

*MK*