NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PAWAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 29.9.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent -complainant direction has been given to the appellant -opposite party to pay Rs. 2,37,808 as assessed by the Surveyor of the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the closing of the case of the complainant till realisation and also to pay Rs. 500 as cost of litigation.

(2.) IN order to focus the controversy involved in the present complaint the essential facts as stated in the complaint have to be noticed. The complainant is the owner of Tata Truck bearing registration No. HR 37 -3597 which was insured with the opposite party under insurance cover No. 639941 dated 19.6.1997 policy No. 3132230128822 for the period 19.6.1997 to 18.6.1998. Said truck met with an accident on 14.1.1998 in the area of Police Station, Khanna Police Post, Roni, District Ludhiana (Punjab) as a result of which extensive damage was caused to the truck. D.D.R No. 3 dated 15.1.1998 was got recorded with Police Station, Roni. The complainant informed about the incident of accident to the branch office of the opposite party No. 1 at Khanna. Capt. Raja Singh Surveyor was appointed as Surveyor by the branch office. He visited the spot and submitted the report of the accident to the said branch office. The complainant removed the said truck to Sahnewal for its repair where it was left with M/s. Vishwakarma Body Maker (Regd.), G.T. Road, near bus stand, Sahnewal District Ludhiana. The opposite party also appointed M/s. Swarandeep and Company, Ludhiana for submitting the final survey report. The complainant had also submitted the requisite documents of concerned driver, registration certificate and other documents and approached the opposite party to release the claim amount as the complainant had incurred expenses of Rs. 2,50,000 for carrying out the repairs of the vehicle on 10.9.2000. The Surveyor appointed by the opposite party assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,37,808 . The opposite party did not accept the claim. The complainant also approached the grievance cell of the opposite party at Chandigarh Regional Office but the opposite party failed to pay the said claimed amount to him and rather, informed the complainant as per letter No. CRO/GC/411/2002 dated 19.4.2002 that his claim had been closed. Thereafter, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 to him besides the cost of the proceedings. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant had failed to repair the vehicle despite the repeated reminders by the Surveyor and branch office of the opposite party and for that reason his case was closed on 13.1.1999. It was further averred that the file was again opened on the request of the insured on 13.7.1999 but when the Surveyor inspected the vehicle, it was noticed by him that the truck in question was lying unattended at repairer s shop. They justified that under the circumstances the complainant has committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and for that reason his claim has not been settled and repudiated. The other pleas of non -maintainability in the complaint in the present form, there being no cause of action in filing the complaint and complaint being barred by limitation were also raised. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions as per order dated 29.9.2005 noticed above. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.