GURPREET SINGH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Gurpreet Singh, against the order dtd. 16/12/2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.932 of 2011.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased "JCB machine" bearing registration No.PB13Q/7269 and got it insured from respondent/Insurance Company and the insurance was valid from 24/11/2009 to 23/11/2010. He paid the requisite premium of Rs.15, 749.00 covering all risks. Respondent/Insurance Company issued a cover note No.687221 in this regard. The said machine met with an accident on 3/9/2010 and the complainant immediately intimated to the Insurance Company, which appointed a surveyor and loss assessor. The surveyor inspected the machine and assessed the loss. Petitioner/complainant got repaired his machine as per instructions of Insurance Company and incurred an expenditure of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 for its repair and immediately gave the bill of repair to the surveyor, who submitted his report to Insurance Company, but the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dtd. 14/12/2010 terming it as "No claim" on the ground that the loss suffered by the machine was due to overturning. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mansa, (in short the 'District Forum') for direction to insurance company to release him the insurance claim of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 along with interest @12% p.a. and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20, 000.00 for suffering mental tension, harassment, agony and inconvenience alongwith Rs.10, 000.00 as litigation expenses. The complaint was resisted by opposite party/Insurance Company reiterating the same grounds which were given in the repudiation letter. It was stated by Insurance Company that a policy was purchased by the complainant but the same was subjected to the compliance of terms and conditions thereof. A surveyor was appointed and on the basis of his report and other supporting documents the claim was declared as "No Claim". The surveyor and loss assessor assessed a loss of Rs.28, 500.00 towards liability, but since the claim was not payable and not covered under the policy of insurance under IMT-47 the claim was rightly repudiated.

(3.) The District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dtd. 10/5/2011 as follows:-