JUDGEMENT

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of Complaint Case Nos.CC/20/14 & CC/20/15 as both these complaint cases filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) involve similar questions of law and facts, hence they are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of Complaint Case No.CC/20/14 are being taken into consideration in this order.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these complaints are that the complainant is a private limited company engaged in transportation of overburden in coal mines through its tippers. Indisputably, the complainant purchased a Volvo FMX 440 Tipper, which was got registered vide No.CG-12-S-6414 and insured for the period between 19.09.2017 to 18.09.2018. The said vehicle met with an accident on 08.11.2017 while going towards open cast mines. Incident was intimated to the opposite party / insurance company. On the instructions of the opposite party insurance company the vehicle was brought to its service center at Korba where the complainant incurred repairing expenses of Rs.49,94,023/- paid on 05.02.2018 and Rs.1,90,000/- paid on 10.01.2018 for welding, denting and painting of the vehicle. Insurance claim was preferred before the opposite party insurance company along with all the documents and bills etc. but the claim was not paid. Thereafter, legal notice was sent to the opposite party insurance company which was not replied and ultimately vide letter dated 23.11.2019 the claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was proposed to be insured under Misc. type of vehicle, whereas it was a GCCV vehicle, which amounts to violation of Motor Vehicles Act. As per the complainant the repudiation of claim was illegal which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party insurance company hence the complaint is filed seeking total compensation of Rs.58,84,023/- (Fifty Eight Lacs Eighty Four Thousand & Twenty Three) on different heads i.e. Rs.51,84,023/- (Five Lacs Eighty Four Thousand & Twenty Three) the actual amount paid for repairs of the vehicle, Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) for the damage caused to complainant while the vehicle remained parked in the workshop for repairs, Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) as compensation for deficiency in service along with any other relief which this Commission deems fit to award. Later on by way of additional statement filed on 22.02.2023 the complainant has stated that from the written version filed by the opposite party it revealed that the surveyor appointed by the opposite party insurance company assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.26,21,672/- and he recommended the insurance company for payment of that amount but copy of the said report was never supplied to the complainant. It is also stated that the ground on which the claim was repudiated was arbitrary, the complainant has not violated any terms of the policy and the insurance company used to issue insurance policy after examination of the vehicle and on the basis of permit and fitness documents.

3. The opposite party in its written version has denied the allegation of deficiency in service leveled against it and averred that on the proposal of the complainant dated 19.09.2017 for insurance of the vehicle in question in miscellaneous category vehicle it was insured under miscellaneous Class-D vehicle package policy, which are filed as Annexure N.A.1 & 2 respectively. It is further averred that on receipt of intimation of the incident surveyor Mr. Nipendra Singh and Mr. Shyam Chhabra were appointed who have given their report dated 13.11.2017 and 28.02.2018 respectively. From the claim form marked as Annexure NA-3, estimate and other documents of the vehicle submitted by the complainant it is evident that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, which was out of the purview of ter