2. Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.7, written statement, supportive documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14, briefly admitted facts of the case are, complainant is the registered owner of the Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing registration No.HR71G-8872 (for short motorcycle). It was insured by the opponent No.2 for the period 10^thSeptember, 2020 to 09^thSeptember, 2021, fact is reflected from copy of insurance policy Ex.C2 and the opponent No.1 at relevant time acted as agent of the opponent No.2 for the purpose of insurance of motorcycle.

3. The complainant alleged, on 01.10.2020, the motorcycle being driven by the complainant near Gram Sachiwalya Ledi Village met with an accident with some unknown Swift Car, which came from his left side and complainant suffered injuries in the accident and on the date on 02.10.2022, somehow the motorcycle was brought in the workshop of opponent No.1 and intimated the accident and damage to the motorcycle in the accident to the opponent No.2 who deputed its surveyor who investigated into the matter and ultimately surveyor of the opponent assessed the net loss to the motorcycle in the sum of Rs.26,362.52/-, fact is reflected from his surveyor report dated 30.10.2020 Ex.R4. The opponent No.1 repaired the motorcycle and ultimately the complainant made payment of repair amount in the sum of Rs.29,797/- from his own pocket and the opponent No.1 in this regard issued the invoice Ex.C6 dated 19.10.2020 in the sum of Rs.29,797/-. However, the amount of repair was not paid by the opponent No.2 rather his claim

2

was repudiated by the opponent No.2 vide letter dated 08^thNovember, 2020 Ex.R5 on the ground on perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant, it was evident that the motorcycle was different from Pre inspection vehicle photos and Final Survey vehicle photos. At the time of pre-inspection, complainant had shown different motorcycle as there had been a deliberate and willful misrepresentation on his part regarding the accident of vehicle.

4. Repudiation/close of the insurance claim case of the complainant by the opponent No.2 according to the complainant is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, constraining him to file the complaint.

5. On receipt of notice of the complaint, the opponent No.1 in its written statement, in material respects supported the complainant.

6. The opponent No.2 and 3 in their written statement in material respect, it admitted the factual position, but denied commission of any act of negligence, deficiency in service, commission of unfair trade practices on its part and endeavoured to justify the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground mentioned in the repudiation letter Ex.R5.

7. Sh. Rakesh Jindal, Ld. Counsel for the complainant, in the course of arguments reiterated to the version made into the complaint and apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, pleading of the opponents and evidence adduced on record by the opponents.

3

8. Sh. JS Arneja, Adv. for the opponent No.1 in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the written statement and further submitted the opponent No.1 committed no act of negligence, deficiency in service in any manner and after repair, the motorcycle was handed over to the complainant and complainant was fully satisfied from its act and the complainant himself gave writing Ex.R2 and he took the delivery of the motorcycle on 18.03.2021, fact is reflected from gate pass Ex.R1 issued by the opponent No.1.

9. Sh. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the opponents No.2 and 3 in the course of arguments, in material respects, reiterated to the version made into the written statement of the opponents No.2 and 3 and he also apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the opponents No.2 and 3 i.e. documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14 and in material respect, he endeavoured to justify the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground, the complainant had obtained the insurance policy Ex.C2 on misrepresentation of the fact, because the motorcycle damaged in the accident dated 01.10.2020 was different than to the insured motorcycle.

10. The moot question before this Commission, is whether the opponents committed any act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, making the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed or to what extent?

11. The accident of the motorcycle as pleaded by the complainant on 01.10.2020 is not disputed by the opponent insurance company as its surveyor in

4

its report Ex.R4 nowhere expressed any doubt of any kind. After the accident, motorcycle was brought in the workshop of the opponent No.1. It repaired the motorcycle and raised bill Ex.C6 and it refused to deliver the motorcycle to the complainant without receipt of repair charges mentioned in the bill Ex.C6. Then the complainant filed an application before the Commission seeking necessary direction against the opponent No.1 to handover the motorcycle without payment of repair bill Ex.C6 as it was required to be paid by the opponent No.2 and 3. However, application dated 02.11.2020 filed by the complainant was partly accepted by this Commission and the opponent No.1 was directed to release the motorcycle of the complainant in favour of the complainant on receipt of amount mentioned in the bill dated 19.10.2020 Ex.C6 excluding the parking charges, subject to final decision of the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant made payment of the bill Ex.C6 to the opponent No.1 and the complainant got satisfied from the act of the opponent No.1, fact is reflected from document Ex.R2 and the motorcycle was delivered to the complainant on 18.03.2021, fact is reflected from gate pass Ex.R1. Since, there was dispute of insurance claim between the complainant on one hand and the opponent No.2 and 3 on the another hand, so at initial stage, the opponent No.1 was fully justified not to release the motorcycle of the complainant without receipt of repair amount, either, from the complainant or from the opponents No.2 and 3 being insurance company. The opponent No.1

5

committed no act of negligence, deficiency in service or any sort of unfair trade practices. The complaint qua the opponent No.1 is liable to be dismissed.

12. Coming on the point whether the opponents No.2 and 3 committed any act of negligence, deficiency in service, act of unfair trade practices, prior to the insurance policy Ex.C2, the same motorcycle was insured for the period 28.02.2019 to 27.02.2020, fact is reflected from insurance policy Ex.C3 and the insurance policy Ex.C3 was issued by Liberty General Insurance Company Limited, then subsequently the motorcycle was insured by the opponent Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited for the period 10^th September, 2020 to 09^thSeptember, 2021, fact is reflected from insurance policy Ex.C2. It mean, the insurance policy Ex.C2 was not in continuation of the insurance policy Ex.C3 and the opponents No.2 and 3 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground, the insurance vehicle was different than to the damaged motorcycle and in this regard, the opponents have kept reliance on photographs Ex.R6 to Ex.R14. The surveyor of the opponents No.2 and 3 nowhere casted/expressed any doubt with regard to the identity of the motorcycle insured vide insurance policy Ex.C2. The opponents No.2 and 3 in their written statement, have not explained any circumstance how they came to the conclusion the damaged motorcycle was different than to the motorcycle which was found duly pre inspection photos and final survey and in order to support the version made into the written statement by the opponents No.2 and 3, the opponents No.2

6

and 3 kept reliance on a sworn affidavit Ex.R1 sworned by Mr. Abhishek Nigam, Assistant Manager of the opponent insurance company, but the same cannot be considered, because the surveyor of the opponents No.2 and 3 in his investigation report/surveyor report Ex.R4 had not casted any sort of doubt on the identity of the insured motorcycle and the version incorporated into the affidavit Ex.R1 is an afterthought story and the opponents No.2 and 3 cannot wriggle out from the report Ex.R4 submitted by its surveyor. As already observed the insurance policy Ex.C2 was not in continuation of earlier insurance policy Ex.C3 and it is noticeable fact, when previous insurance policy expires and is not in continuation of subsequent insurance policy, then before accepting the proposal of subsequent insurance of the motorcycle, the insurance company is required to physically verify the relevant vehicle by taking its photographs, noting the engine number, chassis number with the help of glaze paper and in the case in hand, nothing has come on record that the concerned agent of the opponents No.2 an 3 before issuance of insurance policy Ex.C2 exercised reasonable care and caution to identify the relevant vehicle and once the complainant paid insurance premium qua the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR71G-887, the opponents No.2 and 3 being insurance company liable to pay the insurance claim to the complainant strictly in terms of the insurance policy Ex.C2 and if any act of negligence was committed by its own agent at the time of inspection of the motorcycle, then for his/her fault, claimant cannot be penalized and the opponents No.2 and 3 in order

7

to cover the misdeeds or negligence on the part of its agent and the opponents No.2 and 3 without any justified ground repudiate the insurance claim of the complainant despite the receipt of premium as per insurance policy Ex.C2 qua the motorcycle and it committed an act of negligence, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices. It, apart from making payment of Rs.26,362/- to the complainant as assessed by their surveyor, it is liable to be burdened with punitive damages. The complainant made payment of repair bill to the opponent No.1 somewhere made the payment of bill Ex.C6 on or before 18.03.2021, the date of delivery of the motorcycle to the complainant as the fact reflected from gate pass Ex.R1. The non-payment of genuine claim to the complainant and then, its repudiation without any justification caused unnecessary mental agony, harassment, economic loss, to the complainant and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) are awarded against the opponents No.2 and 3, to compensate the complainant in all heads, such as mental agony, harassment, litigation cost, loss of interest, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet.

13. Hence, due to the reason hereinbefore, the complaint is accepted, against the opponents No.2 and 3, holding them jointly and severally liable to make payment of Rs.26,362/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two) as insurance claim, to the complainant + punitive damages in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to compensate the complainant in all

8

heads, within the period of one month from the date of order, in default of it, the total amount shall carry on simple interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The complaint qua opponent No.1 is dismissed.

14. Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to mention that the complaint has not been decided within the prescribed period of limitation of time. The history of the proceedings shows, at first instance, the complainant delayed the proceedings by filing application dated 02.11.2020 which was disposed off on 07.01.2021. Thereafter, the opponent delayed the proceeding by not concluding evidence within reasonable time and they sought adjournment one or another pretext which also included suspension of work by Member of the District Bar Association. Ultimately, evidence on behalf of the opponents concluded on 11.03.2022 and as a result of COVID-19 Pandemic, there is a heavy pendency of cases before the Commission which also contributes to delay in the proceedings. Apart from it, there is a shortage of manpower in the Commission such as Clerks and Stenos as well as requisite infrastructure, in proportionate to the overall pendency of the cases. Frequent suspension of work by the Bar Association also causes hindrance in the timely disposal of the cases.

15. File be consigned to the records. Dated: 20.12.2022.

(Gulab Singh)

District & Sessions Judge (VRS) (Geeta Parkash) (Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav) President, Lady Member. (Member). DCDRC, YNR.

Typed by: Jitender Sharma, Steno.

9