1. Brief Facts : Complainant, vide policy no. 2004033119P107229771 had got his Honda City Car, RC No. PB-31Q-2223, insured from the OP No. 1. The said policy was valid from 09.09.2019 to 08.09.2020. Copy of the Insurance Policy is Ex. C-1. 

On 15.06.2020, while going towards Budhlada from Bhikhi, the said car of the complainant met with an accident and got damaged. Complainant immediately informed the OP No.1 about the accident and as per the instructions of the OP No.1, parked the said vehicle in the garage of AKC Motors, Ludhiana for repairs. Thereafter, OP No.1 appointed a surveyor i.e. OP No.2 for assessing the loss occurred to the said vehicle in the said accident. Surveyor vide his report (Ex. OP-D) assessed the net loss of Rs. 12,148/- and thereafter OP No.1 paid this amount of Rs. 12,148/- to the complainant and the complainant accepted the said amount and signed a Satisfaction Voucher dated 25.06.2020 to the OP No. 1 (Ex. OP-E) in full discharge of his claim in respect of the damages caused to his vehicle by the said accident of dated 15.06.2020.

Thereafter, on 01.07.2020 i.e. a week later, the complainant again visited the AKC Motors, Ludhiana and reported to them some problems in the AC and the Silencer of the said accidental/repaired car. Upon diagnosis, the said repairer i.e. AKC Motors, Ludhiana found that the AC and Silencer were also required to be replaced (Ex. C-4), therefore they generated a supplementary claim of Rs. 48,738/- and forwarded it to the Surveyor i.e. OP No. 2 for approval. But, the OPs disallowed the supplementary claim of the complainant, due to which the complainant had to get the the AC and Silencer replaced by incurring expenses out of his own pocket and aggrieved with that the complainant now has filed the present complaint praying that OPs be directed to pay the remaining claim amount alongwith interest and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 30,000/- as Litigation expenses.

2. Per Contra, interalia to some other objections, the OPs mainly have pressed that the supplementary claim was not relevant with the nature and cause of the accident. There was not any impact/impression of the alleged accident on the demanded parts i.e. AC and Silencer. The said parts had been damaged due to over running and the exhaust pipe had signs of old damages & welding and rust was present on it. (Referred Letter dated 02.07.2020 of OP No. 2, Ex. OP-F). OPs have submitted that they have already paid the claim amount, as assessed by the surveyor at the time of first inspection of the said vehicle and the same was satisfactory accepted by the complainant also but despite that the complainant has filed this present complaint on false, fictitious and forged grounds just to extract some easy money from the OPs. Therefore, as there is no deficiency on the part of OPs, the present complaint should be dismissed.

3. Complainant has tendered into evidence his Self-Declaration and documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence. OP No. 1 tendered into evidence the Self-Declaration of Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager and some documents i.e. Ex. OP-A to Ex. OP-G and closed the evidence. OP No. 2 has submitted his Self-Declaration i.e. Ex. OP-2(B) only without any supporting documents/evidence. Parties have also submitted their written arguments.

5. Observations : We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and gone through the oral & documentary evidence placed on record, with their kind assistance.

The OPs have repudiated the supplementary claim on the ground that it was not relevant with the nature and cause of the accident. They have submitted that the parts for which the supplementary claim has been raised didn't have any impact/impression of the alleged accident and the said parts had been damaged due to over running. 

The said vehicle, after repairs, was discharged by the AKC Motors, Ludhiana (i.e an empanelled workshop of the OP No. 1) on 25.06.2020. Within a week, i.e. on 01.07.2020, the complainant again had to visit the said workshop with some problems in the working of the AC and the Silencer of the said repaired vehicle. 

If on the date of discharge i.e. 25.06.2020 there wasn't any problem in the AC/Silencer and on 01.07.2020 complainant found some problems in the AC/Silencer then the possibility of developing these problems due to the said accident cannot be ruled out. This indicates that the said vehicle was not completely repaired at the time of first repair by the workshop, otherwise the AC and the Silencer wouldn't have stopped working after just a week from the date of the first repair.

Moreover, the validity of the insurance policy is not disputed. The occurrence of the alleged accident within the continuance of a valid insurance policy is also not disputed. 

When the fact of the accident during the validity of the insurance is duly proved then the denial of the claim on some hyper technical grounds by the OP No. 1 is not in consonance with the spirit of consumer protection act. Therefore, the repudiation of the supplementary claim by the OP No. 1 was not justifiable. 

6. Resultantly, in view of the above, the present complaint is partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 48,738/- alongwith consolidated cost and compensation of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant. Complaint is dismissed against OP No. 2.

7. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. 

8. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory limits, due to Covid restrictions, unavailability of quorum and pendency of other cases.

9. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.