Additional Bench STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 04.07.2022 Reserved on : 04.03.2025 Date of Decision : 20.03.2025 United India Insurance Company Limited, The Mall, Kapurthala through its Branch Manager now through Mrs. Rekha Mathur, Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Legal Department, 108, Surya Towers, 3^rd Floor, Mall Road, Ludhiana 141001 ….Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Harjinder Singh s/o Sohan Singh, resident of Village Majorwal, P.S.

Kotwali, Tehsil and District Kapurthala .…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala.

Quorum:-

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. K.S. Walia, Advocate VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Opposite Party has filed the present Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant was partly allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that he was owner of Arjun 605 Tractor/Trolly, bearing Registration No. PB 33D 2314. He had insured said Tractor/Trolly vide Policy No. 2005043118P111828996 on paying the premium of Rs.13,348/-

. Said policy was valid for the period 15.12.2018 to 14.12.2019.

4. In the night of 4/5^th March, 2019 when the Complainant was coming back after selling the sugarcane crop, at about 1.30 am when he reached near the Petrol Pump in the area of Village Thathian, he received heavy urinal pressure, therefore, he stopped his tractor on side and left from the tractor. The engine of the tractor was started at that time. In the meantime, one Hindu Gentleman quickly came out from Chotta Hathi (Tata Ace) and sit on the Tractor and took the same. Second person driving Chotta Hathi also ran away from the spot after the incident. The Complainant had raised voice/alarm but due to late night condition, nobody heard his voice. Thereafter, the Complainant called his relative on the spot and tried to locate the Tractor but of no use. Then he lodged FIR No. 63 dated 07.03.2019 with the Police Station Beas, District Amritsar Rural. He had also lodged claim with the OP. OP instead of clearing/settling his claim, repudiated the same on the ground that the tractor was lost due to the negligence of the Complainant and his said act violates the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

5. Stating the act of the opposite party to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OP be directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment suffered at the hands of OP and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

6. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellant/OP has appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the Complaint because there was no reason with the Complainant to take advantage of his own wrong doing. It was the case of the Complainant that he had left the ignition key in the tractor and the engine was in running process when he had gone for urine. Said action on the part of the Complainant was an act of negligence in taking proper care of the insured vehicle, which was the prime and fo