ORDER

Inder Singh Mehta, President—Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Learned District Consumer Redressal Forum Una, Camp at Amb, in Consumer Complaint No.17/2018 titled Smt. Tripta Devi versus United India Insurance Company Ltd., and another.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that she is owner of vehicle bearing No.HP-72A-0007 which was insured with the opposite party w.e.f. 01.06.2017 to 02.10.2017. According to the complainant, she was coming from Bilaspur to Una and when she reached village near Hamirpur, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 02.10.2017 as it fell into a ditch near pulley where repair work of road was under progress. At that time, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Gurmeet Singh. Intimation to this effect was given to the opposite party. A surveyor was deputed. The vehicle was taken to Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., an authorized workshop of Audi vehicles at Chandigarh. The vehicle was inspected there by the surveyor. All the requisite documents were supplied to the surveyor. Approximate loss to the tune of Rs.18.00 lacs was estimated by service advisor of the workshop and report was also given to the opposite party. The complainant was instructed by the surveyor to get the vehicle repaired. Accordingly, the vehicle was repaired and a sum of Rs.17,17,660/- was incurred on the repair of the vehicle. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to settle her genuine claim. She has been harassed. There is deficiency in service.

3. The complaint is contested by the opposite party by filing joint reply. It is pleaded that on receipt of intimation of loss, opposite parties appointed Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma as surveyor. As per the survey report, the engine block was busted from right upper side and the damage is not due to any accident. There was no mark/damage to the front bumper and other under body parts. There was some internal problem in the engine and the loss is not covered under the scope of insurance policy. Even in the claim forms, the complainant had given the description of accident as engine problem, which is not covered under the policy. The claim has rightly been repudiated. There is no deficiency in service.

4. Thereafter parties had led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. After hearing parties, the Ld. District Commission partly allowed the complaint against the opposite party No.1.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

8. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 02.10.2017 and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company. On intimation of incident, the surveyor was appointed and he vide his report (Annexure R-3) assessed the loss approximately at Rs.18.00 lacs. He further submitted that factually there was no accident on 02.10.2017. There was engine problem in the said vehicle and said fact has been mentioned by the complainant in the claim forms (Annexure R-4 and R-5). The problem of engine is not covered under the policy and prayed that the appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that in fact accident had occurred and intimation of the same was given to the insurance company, who appointed surveyor. The surveyor assessed approximate loss at Rs.18.00 lacs and non-settling of the claim by the insurance company was bad in law and the District Forum below has rightly passed the order in favour of the respondent No.1 and the same does not require any interference.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 has been wrongly and illegally mad