IMPORTANT POINT
I find no justification to interfere with the principal amount, compensation and the cost of litigation awarded by the fora below.—Para 6

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant/respondent owned a Mahindra Bolero Pickup vehicle which he had got insured with the petitioner company for the period from 28.03.2014 to 27.03.2015. The said vehicle met with an accident within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karalpora in District Kupwara of J&K resulting in death of the driver and total loss of the vehicle. An FIR was registered at the concerned Police Station. On intimation being given to the petitioner, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The claim however, was closed by the petitioner vide letter dated 21.03.2016 which to the extent, it is relevant, reads as under:—

Please refer to our Regd. Letters dated 10.2.2016 and 01.03.2016 in connection with claim of your above vehicle which met with an accident on 13.1.2015 at Kupwara, J & K and FIR No.04/2015 was lodged at PS Kralpora Distt. Kulwara. We requested you provide us copies of the Route Permit and also copies of Post Mortem Report/Injury Certificate (MLR) of the deceased/injured person and any other information about other personas who were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident. But we are sorry to note that you have not submitted the requisite documents till date.

In view of this, we may inform you that in the absence of required documents, we are not in a position to proceed further in the matter and we cannot keep the file open indefinitely, so we are closing your claim as “NO CLAIM”.

2. Being aggrieved from the non-payment of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the complainant had failed to provide the required documents despite request made for this purpose. It was also stated in the written version that the representative of the complainant had informed the surveyor that one Mohd. Sadiq was driving the vehicle whereas the complainant later claimed before the final surveyor that the vehicle was being driven by Sadiq Sheikh.

3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 11.09.2018, directed as under:—

“i. Being a total loss case, to pay 75% of the IDV on non-standard basis to the complainant less the wreck value (salvage), along with interest @ 9% from the date of repudiation, till its actual realization.

ii. To pay Rs.30,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

iii. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

13. The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @ 12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] above from the date of repudiation, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [ii] above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/-”.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since the complainant was also not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, he also preferred an appeal challenging the said order.

5. The State Commission, vide impugned order 29.01.2019, dismissed both the appeals, thereby maintaining the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission.

6. It would be seen from a perusal of the letter dated 21.03.2016 that the only ground taken by the petitioner for closing the claim was the failure of the complainant to provide Route Permit and copies of Post Mortem report/Injury Certificate of the deceased but is otherwise on record. The Post Mortem report was not at all required for the purpose of assessment of the claim since the claim pertained to damage to the vehicle and was not a claim in respect of the life o