- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , against the order dated 22.7.2002, passed in Complaint No. 109/2002 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called District Forum for short) whereby the complaint for deficiency in service by the opposite party was allowed by the District Forum.
(2.) THE facts not presently in dispute are that the complainant/respondent Shri Leelaram Sahu is the owner of a Mahendra Tractor bearing No. M.P. -23 G -8548 and the trolley bearing registration No. M.P. -23 GB -1227. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/respondent got the said tractor and trolley comprehensively insured, under policy No. 9700563, from the appellant Insurance Company for a period from 25.1.2000 to 24.1.2001. It is also undisputed that the said tractor and trolley met with an accident on 8.9.2000 on National Highway No. 10 at about 10 Kms. from village Kadri. The aforesaid accident took place during the insurance period and the tractor and trolley were badly damaged besides injury being caused to the labourers on board the trolley and one of them had died.
(3.) ACCORDING to the facts narrated in the complaint, consequent to the tractor and trolley having been damaged, the complainant had submited an estimate of Rs. 80,000/ - with the opposite party/appellant. The opposite party appointed Shri Anjan Sahoo as Surveyor and the said Surveyor had submitted his report. However, totally ignoring the Surveyor s report, the appellant insurer had, on 29.9.2001 i.e., after a lapse of nearly 20 months, repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was a breach of policy condition as 7 persons were on board the trolley. Resultantly the complaint was filed with allegations of deficiency of service on part of the opposite party. The complainant prayed for award of a total sum of Rs. 1,28,000/ - being the expenses incurred in repairs of the tractor and trolley, together with interest and damages for mental harassment. The opposite party had averred in the written version that the complainant had filed an inflated claim of Rs. 80,000/ - but had submitted bills for repairs amounting only to Rs. 37,400/ -. It was also averred in the written version that as the complainant had, without permission from the opposite party, shifted the tractor and trolley from the spot of accident, the sport survey could not be conducted. It was further averred that the Surveyor appointed by the company had submitted his report on 28.2.2001 and had assessed the loss at Rs. 13,560/ -. But as tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and not for carrying passengers as was being done by the driver at the time of accident, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of breach of policy conditions and by doing so the company has not committed any deficiency in service.;