DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 234 of 14.08.2007<br /> Decided on : 10-01-2008 <br /> Hari Krishan S/o Sh. Om Parkash R/o Near Drain Bridge, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.United India Insurance Company Limited, The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Bagha Purana through its Branch Manager.<br /> 3.Sanjiv, authorised agent of United India Insurance Company Limited, C/o Banti-Parveen Boot House, Geeta Bhawan Road, Bhagta Bhai Ka. <br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> 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. R.D.Goyal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.<br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte. <br /> <br /> O R D E R <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 `Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,80,000/- as per Insured's Declared Value (IDV) alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of accident till payment; Rs. 8500/- as shifting charges (Towing charges); Rs. 25,000/- as damages on account of mental agony, pains and sufferings and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Succinctly put the case of the complainant is that vehicle Tata 909 bearing Registration No. PB-03F-2162 was comprehensively insured with United India Insurance Company Limited through opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 2,80,000/- (IDV) with effect from 27.3.06 to 26.3.07 vide Cover Note No. 626445. Insurance policy was not issued. This vehicle was being driven by its driver Jagsir Singh. It had met with an accident on 8.3.07 at about 7.00 a.m. with milk tanker No. PB-05L-5662. It was totally damaged. Criminal case with FIR No. 39 dated 8.3.07 was registered at Police Station Sadar Taran Taaran against the driver of the tanker as he was negligent in driving his vehicle. Jagsir Singh Driver, Sukha Singh cleaner and Ganesh Chand @ Ramesh Chander caretaker-cum-labourer had died in the incident. Information of the accident was given to the opposite parties. Spot surveyor was deputed by them who took the necessary documents i.e. photocopy of the Registration Certificate, Driving licence, Insurance Cover Note and FIR etc., After spot survey, vehicle was got released on Superdari from the court. After that at the instance of the opposite parties, it was shifted with the help of crane to Ambika Agro Mills, Mukatsar as its goods were loaded in it at the time of accident. A sum of Rs. 6,000/- was paid as towing charges. Vinod Kumar & Associates was deputed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 as final surveyor. Final survey was conducted at Ambika Agro Mills on 6.4.07. Surveyor had demanded estimates from some authorised dealer of Tata Motors, although it was not required. Even if, it was necessary, it was the duty of the insurer to collect them. Under compelling circumstances created by the opposite parties, he (complainant) shifted the vehicle to Krishna Auto Sales, authorised dealer of manufacturing company Tata Motors. Estimates were prepared by it to the tune of Rs. 6,03,218/-. A sum of Rs. 2500/- was spent by him for shifting the damaged vehicle from Mukatsar to Bathinda. Surveyor had given assurance that vehicle is totally damaged and full claim as per IDV would be paid alongwith shifting charges from Taran Taaran to Mukatsar and Mukatsar to Bathinda. Final surveyor had written letter No. Ref. UIC-07-002 to the complainant and his attorney Manish Bansal. It was received by him (complainant) on 27.6.07 at Bhagta Bhai Ka vide which he was asked to shift the vehicle once again with the authorised dealer of Tata 909. In reply, complainant wrote letter dated 28.6.07 through his attorney intimating that he is ready to shift the vehicle again at Krishna Auto Sales at any time as and when asked by the final surveyor. There is no response of this letter from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Vehicle is not roadworthy. Signatures of the complainant and his special attorney Manish Bansal were obtained by the final surveyor on blank consent forms, vouchers, Forms and blank papers with the understanding that he and his company i.e. opposite parties No. 1 & 2 would pay total loss claim as per IDV alongwith shifting charges. More than five months have elapsed but there is no response from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. He and his special attorney wrote letters dated 16.4.07, 26.5.07, 8.6.07, 23.6.07, 28.6.07 and 24.7.07 inquiring from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 the fate of the claim. They gave no satisfactory reply. Copies of the spot survey and final survey report have not been sent. It is added by him that he withdraws all the blank signed documents obtained by the surveyor of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking legal objections that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant as the original insured has transferred the insured vehicle to third party without any intimation; complainant is not consumer as he has no insurable interest in the insured vehicle; vehicle was allegedly driven by Sh. Jagsir Singh and he was holding driving licence to drive LTV only and insured vehicle was having gross weight of 9000 Kgs and as such, it is heavy transport vehicle; complainant was not holding valid Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and Route Permit; vehicle was carrying gratuitous passengers and and such insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is bad for mis-joinder of opposite party No. 3 as party; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. If this Forum comes to the conclusion that opposite Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation, then its liability is limited to Rs. 1,47,160/- after deduction of salvage value of the damaged parts worth Rs. 5,000/- as per survey report of Vinod Kumar & Associates. On merits, they admit that complainant had purchased Insurance Cover Note No. 626445 for vehicle No. PB-03F-2162 effective from 27.3.06 to 26.3.07. After issuance of cover note, policy is sent to the insured in routine. As complainant has transferred the vehicle, he has got no authority to issue power of attorney in favour of Manish Bansal. According to them Branch Office Bagha Purana of opposite Insurance Company falls under the Divisional Office, Moga and not in the Divisional Office, Bathinda. Facts that vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by Sh. Jagsir Singh and had met with an accident with milk tanker are not denied by them. Similarly there is specific denial about the registration of the criminal case against the driver of the milk tanker. Inter-alia their plea is that after the spot survey, final survey was conducted by Vinod Kumar and Associates. Final survey report dated 20.8.06 has been submitted. Vehicle was not totally damaged. It was repairable. Complainant did not pay Rs. 6,000/- as shifting charges. The alleged estimate bills issued by Krishna Auto Sales are false and forged. As per surveyor, net loss to the vehicle is of Rs. 1,52,160/-. Salvage value of the damaged part of the vehicle is to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. They do not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Registered A.D. post notice was issued to opposite party o. 3 on 23.8.07. Neither registered cover nor A.D. was received till 25.9.07. Accordingly opposite party No. 3 was deemed to have been duly served. Neither he nor any one else on his behalf came present. Accordingly, he has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Insurance Cover Note No. 626445 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of driving licence of Jagsir Singh (Ex. C-3), photocopy of verification of driving licence (Ex. C-4), photocopy of FIR No. 39 dated 8.3.07 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of estimate (Ex. C-6), photocopy of RC of vehicle No. PB-03F/2162 (Ex. C-7), photocopy of fitness certificate (Ex. C-8), photocopies of letters alongwith postal receipts (Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-14), photocopy of letter dated 15.5.07 (Ex. C-15), photocopy of envelop (Ex. C-16), photocopy of letter alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-17 & Ex. C-18), photocopy of spot survey report (Ex. C-19), photocopy of final survey report (Ex. C-20), photocopies of photographs (Ex. C-21 to Ex. C-53), photocopy of Motor Claim Form No. 238703 (Ex. C-54), photocopy of VAT Invoice (Ex. C-55), photocopy of verification of R.C. (Ex. C-56), photocopy of Release Order (Ex. C-57) and photocopy of Motor Claim Form No. 238703 (Ex. C-58) .<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Gobind Aggarwal, Divisional Manager (Ex. R-1), affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Surveyor (Ex. R-2), photocopies of photographs (Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5), photocopy of letter dated 26.4.07 (Ex. R-6), photocopy of registered cover (Ex. R-7), photocopy of letter dated 15.5.07 (Ex. R-8), photocopy of registered cover (Ex. R-9), photocopy of letter dated 13.6.07 (Ex. R-10), photocopy of speed post envelop (Ex. R-11), photocopy of letter dated 7.7.07 (Ex. R-12), photocopy of another speed post envelop (Ex. R-13), affidavit of Sh. Kamal Kishore Kaushal, Mechanical Engineer, Surveyor (Ex. R-14), photocopy of driving licence of Jagsir Singh (Ex. R-15), photocopies of verification report (Ex. R-16 & Ex. R-17) , photocopy of RC of vehicle No. PB-03F/2162 (Ex. R-18), photocopy of Agreement dated 18.1.07 (Ex. R-19), photocopy of Policy (Ex. R-20) and copy of Package Policy alongwith terms and conditions (Ex. R-21) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 8. There is no dispute about some facts. They are that complaint got his vehicle Tata 909 insured with the opposite Insurance Company through opposite party No. 3 for the period from 27.3.06 to 26.3.07 vide Cover Note no. 626445. Insured's Declared Value as per Insurance Cover Note, copy of which is Ex. C-2 is 2,80,000/-. There is no denial about the fact that Insured's declared value is determined on the basis of an understanding between the insurer and the insured. Cover note was issued by opposite party No. 3 at Bhagta Bhai Ka on 25.3.06. This vehicle had met with an accident with milk tanker while it was being driven by its driver Jagsir Singh on 8.3.07. In this connection FIR No. 39 dated 8.3.07 was registered in Police Station Sadar Taran Taaran. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 do not specifically deny the death of Jagsir Singh driver in the incident and the occurrence due to the negligence of the driver of the milk tanker. Information of the accident was given to the opposite parties. Spot survey was conducted by the spot surveyor copy of which is Ex. C-19. Thereafter final surveyor M/s. Vinod Kumar & Associates had submitted report dated 20.8.06, copy of which is Ex. C-20. Claim amount regarding loss to the vehicle of the complainant has not been paid.<br /> 9. Principal argument advanced by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties as complainant has transferred the vehicle Tata 909 to M/s. Ambika Agro Mills, Turbagujar Road, Mukatsar on the basis of agreement, copy of which is Ex. R-19 and as such complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file this complaint. For this, he drew our attention to Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act which define sale and agreement to sell. According to him, the nature of Ex. R-19 is such from which it is clear that complainant had sold the vehicle Tata 909 by way of delivering its possession to Ambika Agro Mills without intimation to the opposite Insurance Company. Hence Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.<br /> 10. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant is still the owner of this vehicle. Registration Certificate is in his name. He had got the vehicle comprehensively insured with the opposite Insurance Company and Insurance Cover Note is in his name.<br /> 11. Rival contentions have been considered by us.<br /> 12. Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act is reproduced as under :-<br /> “Contract of Sales <br /> 4. Sale and agreement to sell – <br /> (1) A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price. There may be a contract of sale between one part-owner and another. <br /> (2) A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.<br /> (3) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell.<br /> (4) An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred.”<br /> Sub Section (3) of this Section 4 is very material. Where transfer of property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell. As per Sub Section 4 an agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred. As per Ex. R-19 possession of the vehicle was transferred on 18.1.07 to M/s. Ambika Agro Mills but subject to certain conditions. Agreement to sell is for a consideration of Rs. 2,35,000/-. Out of that a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- was paid on 18.1.07. Condition was that the payment of the remaining amount would be received on 18.2.07 and he (complainant) would be liable to get the registration certificate transferred in the name of M/s. Ambika Agro Mills by way of submitting an affidavit. Hence, it is clear that after the delivery of the possession of the vehicle on 18.1.07 M/s. Ambika Agro Mills had to fulfill some conditions for getting the vehicle transferred in its name from the complainant. In these circumstances, as per Sub Section (3) of Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act transaction between the complainant and M/s. Ambika Agro Mills, in our view, is not complete sale and that it is merely an agreement to sell. Material documents are Registration Certificate and Insurance Cover note, copies of which are Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-2 respectively. As per Registration Certificate, complainant is still the owner of this vehicle. Insurance Cover is in his name. It being so, it does not lie in the mouth of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant. Matter has also been set at rest by the Hon'ble State Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another vs. Dharam Pal I (2007) CPJ 150. In that case there was theft of the vehicle. Claim was repudiated. Plea of the insurer was that on the date of alleged theft, complainant was not owner of the vehicle and had sold it to one 'B'. There was no evidence to definitely conclude sale of vehicle to third party. It was held by the Hon'ble Commission that even assuming that complainant sold the vehicle, registration certificate continued to stand in his name. Legally, he would remain owner on the basis of the registration certificate and Insurer is not absolved of its liability to indemnify the Insured. To the same effect are the authorities Harjit Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited I(2007) CPJ 349, Mohammad Lateef Gujree Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. IV(2004) CPJ 511, Jai Pal Singh & Another Vs. National Insurance Col Ltd & Anr I(2007) CPJ 423 and Kirpal Singh Gill Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited II(2007) CPJ 334. In this scenario complainant has certainly got the locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint.<br /> 13. Objection that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as no part of cause of action has accrued within its territorial jurisdiction, is without any substance. Insurance Cover Note was got issued at Bhagta Bhai Ka within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. Bathinda through opposite party No. 3. Moreover, opposite party No. 1 is the Divisional Office of United India Insurance Company Limited at Bathinda. Mere fact that accident had taken place in the area of Police Station Sadar Taran Taaran is no ground to hold that cause of action to file the complaint has wholly arisen within District Taran Taaran. Hence, this Forum is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.<br /> 14. One of the pleas of the contesting opposite parties is that Jagsir Singh, driver of Tata 909 was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive it as he was holding only LTV licence and vehicle Tata 909 is HTV. He had no authority to drive it. In this way, insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation. He further submitted that gross weight of the vehicle was 9000 Kgs. This argument is devoid of merits. Complainant got verification of this vehicle by way of moving an application as is evident from Ex. C-56. District Transport officer, Bathinda has verified that this vehicle is Light Transport Vehicle. Ex. C-4 is the copy of the driving licence of Jagsir Singh, driver of this vehicle. It reveals that he was authorised to drive light transport vehicle only. Pawan Kumar Bansal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor of the opposite Insurance Company got verification of the driving licence of Jagsir Singh from District Transport Officer, Mukatsar. This District Transport Officer has made report that driving licence is valid from 14.12.04 to 13.12.07 for driving light transport vehicle and it was renewed for this period. Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal through letter copy of which is Ex. R-16 has made it clear to the Branch Manager of the opposite Insurance Company that as per verification report received from the District Transport Officer, Mukatsar, driving licence and its renewal is genuine. Ex. R-18 is the copy of the registration certification of Tata 909. In this document Class of this vehicle has been recorded as LCV. No doubt in this document gross vehicle weight has been recorded as 9000 Kgs. This does not make this vehicle as HTV in view of the verification report of the vehicle by District Transport officer, Bathinda, and in view of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines Light Motor Vehicle according to which Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any which, does not exceed 7500 Kgs. In this case the unladen weight of this Tata 909 is 3000 Kgs. Hence, it is light transport vehicle. Jagsir Singh was competent to drive such vehicle. Objection taken by opposite party No. 1& 2 regarding the driving licence of Jagsir Singh is untenable.<br /> 15. According to the opposite parties gratuitous passengers were being carried in the vehicle Tata 909. In this way, insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and insurer is not liable to pay the compensation as no premium was charged to cover the liability of the passengers. This submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 carries no conviction. For the purpose of supporting this submission, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are relying upon the copy of the Insurance Policy Ex. R-20 according to which a sum of Rs. 99/- has been shown to have been charged to cover personal accident of driver/cleaner/conductor No. 2, amount Rs. 82,500/-. This insurance policy cannot be said to be binding upon the complainant. Admittedly it was issued on 29.3.07 whereas the period of insurance for which cover note copy of which is Ex. C-3 was issued was from 27.3.06 to 26.3.07. Moreover, opposite Insurance Company changed the amount of premium from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 99/- suo-motively. Opposite Insurance Company is bound by the Insurance Cover Note Ex. C-2 according to which a sum of Rs. 100/- has been charged as premium to cover personal accident to two any persons. Moreover Sukha Singh was a cleaner and Ganesh Chand @ Ramesh Chander was caretaker and labourer. Ex. C-2 covers benefit of personal accident to any two persons, who may or may not be employee of the insured. Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that as per Registration Certificate, persons including driver could sit in this vehicle under the rules. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 could not tell that persons sitting in this Tata 909 were beyond the sitting capacity and on that account they were gratuitous passengers.<br /> 16. Learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that after the spot survey was conducted, vehicle was shifted at Ambika Agro Mills, Mukatsar at the instance of the opposite parties with the help of recovery vehicle (crane). A sum of Rs. 6000/- was paid for this purpose by the complainant. Receipt of the same was given to the final surveyor who was appointed on various requests, copies of which are Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10. Survey was conducted by final surveyor Vinod Kumar & Associates at Ambika Agro Mills, Mukatsar on 6.4.07. He had demanded estimates from some authorised dealer of Tata Motors. Due to these compelling circumstances, he (complainant) brought the vehicle to Krishna Auto Sales, Bathinda, authorised dealer which prepared the estimates to the tune of Rs. 5,78,218/- besides labour charges of Rs. 25,000/-. In this manner, total estimate is of Rs. 6,03,218/-. As the vehicle was totally damaged and estimated charges are much higher than the I.D.V. i.e. Rs. 2,80,000/-, complainant is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,80,000/- alongwith interest and Rs. 8500/- as shifting charges which have not been paid despite repeated requests made through letters, copies of which are Ex. C-12 to Ex. C-14. Complainant has co-operated the opposite Insurance Company in every manner. He further submitted that this is evident from the letters copies of which are Ex. C-17 & Ex. C-18. Since claim has not been paid on the basis of total loss basis, opposite parties are deficient in rendering services. Report of surveyor cannot be believed particularly when estimates have been prepared by the authorised dealer of Tata Motors. For this, he cited the authority K.L. Malhotra Vs. Oriental Insurance Company & Another I (2003) CPJ 107 (NC) in which it was held that when the loss is assessed by the authorised agent of the manufacturer, amount could not be reduced by the State Commission without any justification.<br /> 17. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that if this Forum comes to the conclusion that opposite Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation then its liability is limited to Rs. 1,47,160/- only after deduction of salvage value of the damaged parts worth Rs. 5,000/- as per survey report of M/s. Vinod Kumar & Associates, copy of which is Ex. C-20. They are not liable to pay Towing charges beyond Rs. 1500/- which have been allowed by the final surveyor.<br /> 18. Rival arguments have been taken into consideration by us. Counsel for the complainant failed to show us any document according to which direction was given by the opposite Insurance Company to bring accidental vehicle Tata 909 to M/s. Ambika Agro Mills, Mukatsar by way of towing it and on that account it would pay the towing charges. To the contrary, complainant has admitted that vehicle was got released on Superdari and after that it was shifted to Ambika Agro Mills, goods of which were loaded in it. It being so, complainant is not entitled to claim Rs. 6,000/-. No doubt Krishna Auto Sales, Bathinda which is an authorised dealer of manufacturing company Tata Motors estimated the damages to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 6,03,218/- and surveyor of the opposite parties have assessed the loss on repair basis considering damages of Rs. 1,52,160/-. Expected salvage value is about Rs. 5,000/-. In our view, complainant cannot claim the total Insured's Declared Value of Rs. 2,80,000/- by way of relying upon the authority K.L. Malhotra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr. (supra). In that case, repairs were carried out by the authorised agent of the manufacturer and amount for repairs was reduced by the Hon'ble State Commission. It was held that when loss was assessed by the authorised agent of the manufacturer, amount could not be reduced. With utmost regard and humility to this authority, it is not applicable in this case as in the case in hand, repairs have not been carried out by Krishan Auto Sales authorised dealer of manufacturing company. It simply prepared the estimates of the damages on the basis of the visual observations. Against the estimated charges assessed by Krishna Auto Sales, there is report of the surveyor, copy of which is Ex. C-2. Learned counsel for the complainant could not assign sufficient reason to reject it. Report of the surveyor is an important document. There should be plausible and sufficient reasons for not accepting it which have not been furnished by the complainant. Accordingly, report of the surveyor deserves to be accepted. For this, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Paam Eatable Private Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 2004(3) CLT 163. Accordingly, we hold that the loss to the vehicle Tata 909 to the tune of Rs. 1,52,160/- and expected salvage value is Rs. 5,000/-. When it is so, liability of the opposite Insurance Company comes to Rs. 1,47,160/- after deduction of salvage value. Complainant is not entitled to the amount as claimed by him regarding damages to the vehicle. Since the amount of Rs. 1,47,160/- has not paid by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2, deficiency in service on their part is established.<br /> 19. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant and if so from whom. In our view, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are liable to pay Rs. 1,47,160/- as vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. So far as opposite party No. 3 is concerned, he is merely an agent of the Company and as such, he cannot be held liable. Accordingly direction deserves to be given to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 1,47,160/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. w.e.f. 24.06.07( the date calculated on expiry of three months period from the date of letter dated 23.3.07, copy of which is Ex. C-9 written to the Branch Manager of the opposite Insurance Company intimating the accident of the vehicle, a period required for processing the case in an effective manner in normal case) till realisation. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental, agony, pain and sufferings. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above and in view of the authority in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Bhupinder Kaur (Minor) and others 2002(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 /> 20. In the result, complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. It stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 3 as principal liability to pay the amount is of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Accordingly, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Pay Rs. 1,47,160/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ Rs. 9% P.A. from 24.6.07 till realisation.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 10-01-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member