ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.91 of 2021 Date of institution : 26.03.2021 Reserved on : 22.08.2023 Date of decision : 04.09.2023 United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Senior Branch Manager, Rajpura having its regional office at SCO 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its duly constituted attorney.

…..Appellant/Opposite party Versus Gurpritam Singh S/o Shri Yashpal Singh, H.No.1068, Jagdish Colony, Rajpura.

….Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala.

Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (in short, the “District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite party (in short ‘OP’), under the Consumer Protection Act, was allowed with the following relief:-

“23. So due to our above discussion the complaint stands allowed and the OP is directed to pay the amount of Rs.4,46,941.30 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e.12.01.2018 till realization. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.”

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

3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant was owner of Truck bearing Registration No.PB-11-BY-7001 and the same was being plied by him for earning his livelihood. The said truck was insured with OP, vide insurance policy valid from 16.05.2016 to 15.05.2017 for the sum assured of Rs.27.55 lacs. The father of the complainant Sh. Yashpal Singh, Ex- Driver of Indian Army, was working as driver on the said truck. Unfortunately, on 19.11.2016 the truck met with an accident within the jurisdiction of police station Solan(HP). The complainant immediately informed the OP and submitted all the required documents as desired by it. The OP deputed Sh. Bansal as Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, but the OP repudiated the claim on the ground of validity of the driving license. The driver of the truck had got the driving license from licensing authority Kokrajhar, Assam during his service through Army Authorities and the said DL was valid on the date of accident and he was competent to drive the insured vehicle. The complainant further stated that Sh. Yashpal Singh, after his retirement, got issued another DL from licensing authority, Patiala with the impression that for doing the job of ‘Driver’ he had to get DL from Civil Authorities. The complainant to show his bonafide supplied both the DLs to the OP but the OP rejected the genuine claim, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant filed the consumer complaint and sought directions against the OP to pay Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @12% for the damages caused to the vehicle and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. The complaint was contested by the OP, who filed written reply and raised certain legal objections, inter alia, that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and the same was not maintainable. On merits, OP stated that on receipt of information of loss to the insured vehicle on 15.11.2016, it deputed Sh. Rajesh Kumar, approved ‘IRDA Surveyor and Loss Assessor’, to assess the loss. The said surveyor, vide his report dated 13.02.2017, assessed to loss to the tune of Rs.4,46,941.30 and further mentioned in the report that DL submi