STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 29.04.2022 Reserved on : 14.12.2022 Date of Decision : 02.01.2023 Gurdeep Singh aged about 43 years son of Darshan Singh, resident of Village Budhladewala, District Bathinda.

……..Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2090, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager.

2. Sundaram Finance Limited, 1^st Floor, 3038-A, Ahluwalia Complex, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda, through its Manager.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for modification of order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda by enhancing the claim amount and by allowing the complaint in toto.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Ni tish Garg, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. P.S. Bedi, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None

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 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The appellant/complainant-Gurdeep Singh has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) for modification/enhancement of amount of compensation as well as cost as awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (hereinafter referred as the “District Commission”) vide order dated 10.02.2022, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was partly allowed by awarding cost and the compensation of Rs.10,000/- against OP No.1 with further direction to pay Rs.1,18,204/- (Rs.8,68,204/- (-) Rs.7,50,000/-) to the appellant/complainant failing which the appellant/complainant would be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.1,18,204/- @9% p.a. w.e.f.

14.03.2017 till its realization.

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

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the complainant Gurdeep Singh in the complaint filed before the District Commission are that he was the owner of Truck bearing No.PB-03- AJ-9463 which was comprehensively insured with OP No.1 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Limited with effect from 28.04.2015 to 27.04.2016 vide Cover Note No.051957. OP No.1 issued said Cover Note for the insured declared value of Rs.24,50,000/- on receiving an amount of Rs.41,755/- as annual premium. Said Truck was under the hypothecation of OP No.2.

4. The grievance of the complainant was that OP No.1 did not issue complete policy with the terms and conditions whereas it was mandatory. A Proposal Form was obtained from the complainant before issuing the cover note and even the photocopy of the Proposal Form was not supplied whereas it was mandatory as per the IRDA Regulations. The said Truck met with an accident on 07.01.2016 with one Bus in the revenue limit of PS Chattargarh, District Bikaner while coming from the opposite direction and was being driven by one Shyam Lal Meghwal in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road. The Truck was completely damaged. An amount of Rs.5000/- was spent by the complainant for shifting the vehicle from the place of accident. Thereafter, OP appointed Surveyor namely R.P. Bhasin and Company from Ludhiana. Service Centre of the Manufacturer who issued an estimate of Rs.11,68,097/- All necessary documents were supplied to OP No.1 through Surveyor and signatures of the complainant were also obtained by him on the blank papers. An assurance was given that the full claim amount would be paid to the complainant. However, no copy of spot or final survey report was sent to the complainant whereas it was mandatory as per IRDA Rules. Inspite of completing all the formalities still the claim was repudiated by OP No.1 vide l