JUDGEMENT

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of Complaint Case Nos.CC/20/17 & CC/20/18 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/20/17 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 Volvo 460 Tipper, which was got registered vide No.CG-12-AU-3278 and insured for the period between 13.04.2018 to 12.04.2019. The said vehicle met with an accident on 02.06.2018 while returning from unloading point in Manikpur Mine Korba. Incident was intimated to the opposite party / insurance company. The vehicle was brought to DPMC Motors Pvt. Ltd for repairs where total bill of repairs Rs.26,58,157/- including spot repairing labour charges Rs.2,36,000/- was given which was paid by the complainant. 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 07.11.2019 the claim was repudiated on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. 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.33,00,000/- (Thirty Three Lacs) on different heads i.e. Rs.26,00,000/- (Twenty Six Lacs) 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.16,33,641/- 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 basis of email dated 03.04.2018 of the complainant requesting for issuance of insurance policy under GCCV-Private Carrier policy for the vehicle in question, the same was insured under GCCV- Private Carrier Package Policy for the period 13.04.2018 to 12.04.2019. The copy of email and the insurance policy are filed as Annexure NA-1 & NA-2 respectively. It is further averred that on receipt of intimation of the incident and Claim Form, Annexure NA-3 surveyor Mr. Mahavir Prasad Jaisawal was appointed for Spot Survey who gave his report dated 25.08.2018 and thereafter surveyor Mr. Premkrishna Singh was appointed for final survey whose report dated 23.03.2019 is brought on record as Annexure NA-5 and his re-inspection report of the vehicle dated 20.05.2019 as Annexure NA-6. It was found by the insurance company that the vehicle was being used as commercial vehicle, as per note sheet of Motor Clai