Consumer forums cannot adjudicate complaints involving complex disputed questions of fact, fraud, or misrepresentation that require detailed evidence and cross-examination, as their proceedings are summary in nature.

SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER

The Appellant/Complainant-Mohan Singh Kandola has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘The Act’) to challenge the impugned Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short ‘the District Commission’) whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was disposed off.

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 in the Complaint before the District Commission are that the Complainant is an owner of Mercedes Benz Model 2017. The vehicle is registered as No.PB 090AE-9001. The said vehicle was insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.2015023121112014687, which was valid w.e.f. 19.02.2022 to 18.02.2023. He had paid the premium of an amount of Rs.46,969/- to OP No.1. The insured vehicle had met with an accident with a tanker bearing registration No.PB 13 BG 3776 when the Complainant along with his son Jatinder Singh was travelling from Balachaur to Banga (Distt. SBS Nagar) on 31.10.2022. The Complainant was driving the car while his son was sitting in front along with him. The intimation to this effect was given to the Police Station Jadla. A DDR was registered vide Rapat No.07 dated 01.11.2022. An intimation of accident was also sent to OP No.1. Thereafter, the accidental car was taken to Namdhari Motor Garage Khatkar Kalan where the Surveyor had inspected the said vehicle. He had concluded that there was total loss to the car. The Complainant was surprised when he received a letter dated 18.08.2023 from OP No.1 wherein the claim of the Complainant had been repudiated on the ground that there was major alteration of driver. The OPs had wrongly repudiated the claim without any basis. Due to said act and conduct of the OPs, the Complainant had filed the Complaint with the prayer to issue directions to the OPs to make the payment of loss occurred to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- along with interest litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and to pay an amount of Ra.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of ‘deficiency in service’, mental tension, pain. Further OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for suffering agony by the Complainant.

4. Upon issuance of notice of the Complaint, OPs No.1&2 had appeared through their Counsel and filed their joint written reply. It was admitted that the Complainant had got his car insured with OPs vide policy No.2015023121311201487 which was valid w.e.f. 19.02.2022 to 18.02.2023. The Complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the said Insurance Policy. Upon intimation of accident received from the Complainant, the Official of OPs immediately deputed surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor had recorded the statement of the Complainant. Thereafter another surveyor was appointed who had visited the spot. He had recorded the statements of certain witnesses including the Complainant. The statement of the Complainant recorded by both the Surveyors was found to be false after spot verification/evidence from different sources. The Complainant had submitted fabricated medical slip to establish that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He was asked to explain/elaborate on the statement tendered by him, however, there wa