Gurdev Singh, J. -
(1.) THE appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 30.6.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Paramjeet Kaur, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 57,775, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 16.10.2010 till realization and Rs. 3,000 as litigation expenses and to take back cheque dated 16.12.2010 Ex. C10 illegally sent by it to Sundaram Finance Ltd. instead of sending the same to the complainant. The complainant alleged in her complaint that she purchased one truck make Tata -2515 for Rs. 13,75,000, vide invoice dated 7.8.2010, after getting the same financed from M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd., Sangrur and got the same registered with the Registering Authority, Sangrur, vide No. PB -13 -X -9297. She got the same comprehensively insured with opposite party No. 1, vide cover note dated 9.8.2010 by paying Rs. 27,648 as premium and the I.D.V. was given as Rs. 15,67,500. The period of insurance was from 9.8.2010 to 8.8.2011. On 16.10.2010 this truck was booked for transportation of goods from Village Killa Hakima to Tarn Taran. Accordingly Gurcharan Singh, Driver, took the truck to that Village and when he was taking the goods in the same to Tarn Taran, it met with an accident and overturned. In the accident the truck was badly damaged and intimation was immediately given to opposite party No. 1, who deputed Mr. Kohli as Surveyor. That Surveyor visited the spot and prepared the rough estimate of the loss caused to the truck. She was asked to take the truck for repairs and to intimate opposite party No. 1 after getting the same repaired for final survey. The truck was shifted to Sahnewal, Ludhiana, by towing the same, in respect of which she incurred expenses of Rs. 5,000. The truck was got shifted to Vishwakarma Body Makers, to whom a sum of Rs. 70,775 was paid, vide Bill No. 437 dated 8.11.2010 on account of body parts, cabin, repairs and labour charges. The same was got painted from Davinder, Painter, to whom an amount of Rs. 7,500 was paid, vide Bill No. 20 dated 8.11.2010. Opposite party No. 1 was duly informed about the repairs of the truck and the payment of those amounts. The original bills were taken by the Surveyor of that opposite party, who gave assurance that her claim would be settled within 10/15 days. She visited the office of opposite party No. 1 a number of times to enquire about the status of her claim and then she got the intimation that cheque No. 078549 dated 16.12.2010 for Rs. 32,025, as payment of her claim, had been sent to M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. She refused to accept that amount for the settlement of claim as the same was much less than the actual amount spent by her. She also challenged the act of opposite party No. 1 in sending the cheque to the Finance Company instead of handing over the same to her. All these acts and conduct of the opposite parties amount to gross deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice; as a result of which she suffered lot of mental tension, pain, agony, harassment and financial loss and for the same she claimed Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and Rs. 7,500 as litigation expenses. She prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party, besides the direction to pay Rs. 78,275 on account of the expenses incurred on repairs, etc. and Rs. 5,000 as towing charges, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(2.) THE opposite parties filed joint written reply, in which they admitted that the complainant had purchased the truck after getting the same financed from Sundaram Finance and got the same insured with opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 15,67,500. They also admitted that intimation regarding the accident was given to them upon which Manjit Singh Kohli was appointed as Surveyor, who submitted his report dated 22.10.2010 and that Harish Kumar Laroiya, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, made the final survey and that the cheque of Rs. 32,025, including Rs. 2,500 as the towing charges, as assessed by that Surveyor, was sent to the Finance Company. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that Harish Kumar Laroiya had personally examined the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs. 32,025, which included the towing charges and he submitted his report dated 13.11.2010. It was only after examining the entire record that the cheque of that amount was sent to the Finance Company, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, as the amount for purchasing the truck was provided by that Finance Company. They never indulged in any such act and conduct which might amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned Counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as no one appeared on behalf of the complainant. We have also carefully gone through the records of the District Forum.;