Corruption, Root of Injustic

“In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty
but organised robbery?”

–Saint Augustine
CORRUPTION,
ROOT OF INJUSTICE
Other books by the same Author:
- Justice Disgraced
- Pangs of A Petition for Justice
- Repeated Rape of Justice
- Was Bhindranwala A Congress Creation?
- Me Judice (Edited)
- Impartial Report On Sikh Genocide 1984 (Ed.)
- Sikhism and the Sikhs (Ed.)
- Scam of Illegal Promotions (in press)
- My Complaints Against Advocates (in press)
- Indian Communal & Casteist Media and the Sikhs (in prss)
- My experiences with Indian Judiciary (under prepration)
- dWtp qdh b>Ddq+a \l.fj!|
“In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty
but organised robbery?”
–Saint Augustine
CORRUPTION,
ROOT OF INJUSTICE
Baldev Singh
M.A.
2018
CORRUPTION, ROOT OF INJUSTICE
by
BALDEV SINGH
245, URBAN ESTATE,
KAPURTHALA - 144 601 (INDIA)
MOB. 098151-20919
Email : baldevsingh300@gmail.com
Google : Baldev Singh 1944
ISBN 978-93-5126
First Edition 2017
Price: Rs.
Published by
THE AUTHOR
Printers:
PRINTWELL, 146, INDUSTRIAL FOCAL POINT, AMRITSAR
Dedicated to those
who fight against
corruption, injustice
and
fight for truth
6 Corruption, Root of Injustice
CONTENTS
- Preface 9
–Complaint to Chairman, NIC dt. 18.8.2014 15
–Letter to SHO, dt 29.9.2014 17
–Complaint to P.M. against President
Distt. Forum, Kapurthala dt. 2.10.2015 18
–Complete Case file of 23/2015 dt. 12.12.14 21
–Certified copy of Judgement dt. 6.8.15 73
- Letter to Police Commissioner Amritsar dt. 11.6.2015 85
- Reply by Additional Secretary Food & Supply,
Govt of Punjab., Chandigarh dt. 11-2-2016 86
- Letter to P.M. dt. 7.3.2016 87
- PMO’s Letter dt. 14.3.2016 88
- Vigilance Deptt. Punjab Govt.’s letter dt. 21.3.2016 89
- Letter dt. 27.4.2016 to Chief Secretary,
Govt of Punjab, Chandigarh 90
- Punjab Govt. letter dt. 24.5.2016 91
- Punjab Govt. Letter dt. 1.7.2016 92
- Will go whole hog to bring corruption to Justice,
says Govt. dt. 29.4.2016 94
Preface
Death is ultimate, inevitable and final truth of life but
for some it is delayed, deferred. For me it was deferred four
times. First time it was deferred when I was 33 months old
sitting in the lap of my mother during August 1947
holocaust, in our village Gurudwara in West Punjab. My
mother was hit on her head with axe and was considered
dead and left. They had spared kids to their fate. It was not
like June and November 1984 when they were burnt alive to
be roasted for dogs to eat. My mother was taken to hospital
by Army and survived. Others had died. Second time, when
travelling in a helicopter from Aijal (Mizoram) to Silchar
(Assam) in November 1971. Halicopter had crash landed
after pilot's window had his rear rudder and damaged it.
Third time, I was to be crushed between two colliding mini
buses in Calcutta in 1978. Fourth time, while driving my
car from Amritsar to Kapurthala near Jandiala Guru in May
2014. My car was hit at right back side by a truck running
on fast lane meant for cars, jeeps etc. while suddenly turning
left without giving hand or indication. After the hit my car
flew about 600 somersaulted and crossed the road divider
and crash landed on the other side of four lanning Grand
Trunk Road, original name Sher Shah Suri Marg, now
National Highway-I. It was miracle that I survived without
any outside injury. However, inside injuries troubled me
for about two months. I was immediately taken to Amandeep
10 Corruption,Preface
Root of Injustice
Hospital Amritsar in 108 van. Two of sympathetic on-

lookers, Yadvinder Singh and Palwinder Singh accompanied
me to the Hospital and helped me. I was found to be O.K.
and put in a taxi and sent home. On way I filed police report
at Jandiala Guru. ASI told me, before claiming insurance
money I should talk to him. He will get me compensation
from truck owner for the damages to my car. Immediately
after the hit, truck had stopped. I had seen that but could
not read truck number. There were scratches of tyres of both
the vehicles on the road. Later on I learnt that the truck driver
had gone to police station with papers. Soon the matter was
'hushed up' or 'settled' and no information about the truck,
its owner and driver was given to me. When I met near by
shop owners to know details about the truck I found them
to be evasive. One of the told me, "you have survived, go
and pray to God." They were silenced by local police.'
I had taken VRS as Bank Manager in March 2001 while
posted at Amritsar and knew about corruption in insurance
claims but this was my first direct experience. The bonds of
corrupt are very strong. Their survival depends upon unity.
It is like Communist slogan, "workers of the world unite."
Corrupt unite. Even God is helpless before them leave aside
a mortal like me!!!
I took out insurance policy and rang up Mobile No.
given over it, it was dummy. I went to the address given over
it by the person who had done insurance. He was sympathatic
and offered me to help. I felt like, "Doobte ko Tinke ka Sahara".
But soon I found him to be exploiting an old man in difficulties
or fishing in troubled waters. He asked me, “from where
from you want to get your car repaired?” I told him from
Swani Motors, Amritsar. He told me it should be at
Corruption,Preface
Root of Injustice 11
Kapurthala. I told him about T.S. Walia Motors. He said, "no

I know some one he will do it better." I had no option but to
agree. He telephoned owner of Satpal Maruti Motors and
Surveyor and fixed next day for going of Jandiala Guru to
bring car. Satpal Singh had arranged tow vehicle to bring car.
I was asked to pay Rs. 3500/- for tow vehicle charges. When
I went to ASI for copy of my police report. He delayed it. May
be I did not pay to get a copy of it. Also no money was paid
to surveyor. At this stage money is paid. After dismantling
it, attitude and behaviour of insurance agent, Surveyor and
owner of Satpal Motors changed. I was even asked to take it
and give it to some other Motor Co. I had no option to take
it now, after it was dismantled.
All parts were purchased by owner of Satpal Maruti
Motors from shops of his choice. All bills were with him,
not one was shows to me, nor as a layman I had any
knowledge about parts. The bills were given to surveyor.
But in the report dt. 29.6.14 submitted by Surveyor to
insurance Co. and report dt. 28.5.2015 submitted to Forum
Consumer does not mention any one of the bills submitted
by Satpal Maruti Motors and considered and then rejected
by the Surveyor. A cursory look at surveyor's report show
that he had prepared his own figures without considering
the bills submitted by the owner of Satpal Maruti Motors.
The President of Forum also did not care to consider this
fact, Supreme Court order in a similar case of 2009 and
other points argued in my Complaint cum Petition, Evidence
by way of Affidavit, Reply to Preliminary Objections, Reply
on Merits, Rule 3 of CPC 1908 and prayers that repair took
25 days, that it took 70 days to make part payment after
delivery of car and that too after legal Notice was sent. That
12 Corruption,Preface
Root of Injustice
the bills were shown to Satpal Singh owner of Satpal Maruti

Motors and he had identified the bills but this fact and others
were deliberately ignored and twisted by the President of
the Forum A K Mehta in its order dt. 6.8.2015. Although
other two members spoke in my favour but President being
legal man and being presiding person swayed other two
members against me. All the points raised and argued by
me constitute deficiency in service and injustice.
When I had filed Complaint in the Forum at Kapurthala
it had no President. T.S. Bhatia, President of Jalandhar Forum
used to come for one or two days at Kapurthala. That the
Notice was issued by him and he was reputed to be honest
man. Things change with individual. Recently we saw it in
Supreme Court ordering re-start of case against L K Adwani
and others in Babri demolition case by Justice P.C. Ghose in
April 2017. Advocate for Advani was seeking longer
adjournment so that this judge retires and other judge could
bail his client out but Justice Ghose could see through the
game!
The Order dt. 6.8.2015 passed by President A K Mehta
from Para 1 to 10 is repetition of same points. Only at Para
11 he writes against me, what is mentioned by the
respondents but deliberately fails to mention what I had
mentioned, produced and argued in the entire case including
SC order. That, it was pre-planned and motivated strategy
to dismiss my Complaint/Petition. It was a calculated move.
If I go in for appeal in State Forum at Chandigarh and then
in National Forum at New Delhi respectively, I will have to
spend more money then I expected from the insurance Co.
I had already experienced and mentioned in my book,
"Repeated Rape of Justice".
Corruption,Preface
Root of Injustice 13
In history we find many examples that many States,

Nations, Countries have collapsed under the weight of
corruption and injustice. States survive and prosper where
justice in available at first step and in shortest period. Our
rulers are not willing to learn from history.
Aggrieved by the order dt. 6.8.2015 I sent a complaint
to the Hon'ble P.M. Shri Narender Modi on October 2, 2015
on the birth day of Mahatma Gandhi. It was forwarded to
Badal Govt. in Punjab. Time and again I was ill-advised to
file appeal for which time period was 30 days only. I had
crossed this time frame. Now I intend to file complaint with
Amrinder Singh Govt. and wait for its out come. It may not
be any different basic character is same !
28.4.2017 Baldev Singh

Kapurthala
Corruption, Root of Injustice 15
REGD.
The Chairman,
National Insurance CO. LTD,
3, Middleton Street,
Kolkata 700 071
Subject: Car Accident Insurance Claim Not Paid For Not

Paying Bribe
Sir,
I am owner of car no. PB09 N 0398. It is insured by
Mr. Inderjit Singh, employee of your company at Sultanpur
Road, Kapurthala 144 601 Pb. He is doing it in the name of
his wife or close relative. He is living near my house in the
same colony.
I met with an accident on 23.5.2014 while driving from
Amritsar to Kapurthala on main G.T. Road near Jandiala
Guru. Distt. Amritsar. God saved me from sure death and
grievious injury. I filed complaint at PS Jandiala Guru on
same day and next day informed Mr. Inderjit Singh so that
legal official job could be proceeded with. On May 24, 2014
I alongwith Mr. Jyoti Taneja Surveyor and Mr. Satpal owner
of m/s Satpal Maruti Mahal went to bring car from Jandiala
Guru with the help of tow vehicle. I was asked to pay rs.
3500/- for the service. My car was repaired and given to me
on 20.6.2014. After making payment to Saptal Maruti Mahal.
Owner Mr. Satpal handed over all the papers/bills etc to
surveyor Mr. Jyoti Taneja. The Bills were of Rs. 3500/-, Rs.
2700/-, Rs. 25000/-, Rs. 11327/- and Rs. 21112/- totaling Rs.
63639/-. When after about two weeks I visited office to

enquire about the payment, I was told that surveyor has
made some deductions. File No. 84/14 I informed the
Manager Mr. Banga that wrong and arbitrary deductions
have been made by surveyor Mr. Jyoti Taneja. Thereafter, I
made three visits to Mr. Banga for payment but it is not
made till date. The reason being that I do not make payment
as bribe to any one. For that reason accident claim payment
is not made even after such a long period.
I would, therefore, request for inquiry and appropriate
action in the matter and payment of my bill in accordance
with rules of your company. Your officials conduct is brining
bad name to your company.
Requesting for early action in the matter.
Yours sincerely,
August 18, 2014 (Baldev Singh)

245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala 144 601
Punjab
Encl: 2
REGD.
The SHO
PS Jandiala Guru
Distt. Amritsar.
Sir, Subject: SUPPLY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASI

DURLAB DARSHAN SINGH IN THE
MATTER OF DDR (DASTI) 360 Dt. 23.5.2014.
I met with an accident on 23.5.2014 and had filed an

application on 23.5.14 for legal/appropriate action/enquiry
in the matter. It was marked to ASI Durlabh Darshan SKingh
for necessary action, by now it must have been filed by him.
Kindly supply me copy of that report. Photocopy of my
application is also enclosed for ready reference plese.
Thanking you.
Yours Sincerely.
(Baldev Singh)
September 29, 2014 245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala 144 601.
Mobile 95151-20919.
P.S. I am seventy years old and have not fully recovered

from my internal injuries.
REGD.
Kapurthala 144 601,
October 2, 2015.
Gandhi Jayanti.
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Modi,
P.M. of India, PMO,
New Delhi.
Respected Sir,
Subject : CORRUPTION ROOT OF INJUSTICE
ILLEGAL ARBITRARY ORDER PASED BY Mr.
A.K. MEHTA, PRESIDENT DISTT. CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA
144 601 (Pb.) DELIBRATELY IGNORING ALL
FACTS, AVERMENTS, PRAYERS ON RECORT
AND RULE 3 OF ORDER VIII OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1908.
Most respectfully, I beg to submit that I had filed a
complaint before the Distt. Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Kapurthala, Case No. 23/2015 for less paid car
accident claim. That the complete paper book including
reply/written statement/affidavits of all the respondents is
enclosed herewith for ready reference, from page 1 to 47
and Order of President Sh. A.K. Mehta dt. 6.8.15 from page
48 to 62 is also enclosed. That the order was passed
deliberately ignoring all the facts, averments and prayers
on the record of the case and also in gross violation of Rule
3 of order VIII of CPC 1908 to do injustice to this complainant
who is senior citizen (70+). That the actual repair and parts
bills were for Rs. 63639/- (Rs. 3500/-, Rs. 2700/-, Rs. 25000/-,
Rs. 11327/- and Rs. 21112/-) but surveyor's report has
assessed from some other bills of Labour Rs. 45500/- and

pars Rs. 64979.55 Fraud;
Therefore, it is most humbly requested for enquiry from
vigilance angle and appropriate action in the matter.
Meanwhile work from Mr. A.K. Mehta, President, should
be withdrawn, pending enquiry in the matter.
With humble regards.
Yours Sincerely.
(Baldev Singh)
September 29, 2014 245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala 144 601. (Pb.)
Mobile 95151-20919.
Encls: a/a
AFFIDAVIT
I, Baldev Singh son of Late Sh. Kartar Singh and resident

of 245, Urban Estate, Kapurthala 144 601 (Punjab) do hereby
solemenly affirm and declare as under:
1. That my date of birth is 12.12.1944 (twelve December
nineteen forty four) therefore, Senior Citizen.
2. That I have filed a complaint with the Hon'ble P.M. Shri
Narendra Modi, New Delhi dated October 2, 2015 against
Sh. A.K. Mehta, President, Distt. CDR Forum,
Kapurthala 144 601 (Pb.) for passing illegal and Arbitrary
order dt. 6.8.15 in gross violation of code of Civil
Procedure 1908 order VIII rule 3 and ignoring facts,
arguments and prayer in the petition/complaint in case
No. 23/2015.
3. That the facts and the allegation in the complaint dated
October2, 2015 are correct and genuine one.
Deponent
Declaration:
I, the above named deponent do hereby declare that
the facts stated in the above affidavit are correct and true to
the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed therein.
Dated: October, 2015 Deponent
Kapurthala 144 601
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, KAPURTHALA
Case No:. 23/2015
Baldev Singh,
245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala 144 601 ……………………….Petitioner
Versus
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. through

Br. Manager,
Sultanpur Road,
Kapurthala 144 601.
2. The Chairman,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kolkatta 700 071.
3. Mr. Jyoti Taneja, Surveyor
C/O National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sultapur Road,
Kapurthala 144 601.
4. Mr. Satpal Singh,
Satpal Maruti Mahal,
Near Bus Stand,
Kapurthala 144 601. …………….Respondents
Application/Petition under Consumer Protection Act-1986

For
1. DUE PAYMENT OF LESS PAID ACCIDENT
INSURANCE CLAIM OF CAR No. PB09 N 0398 WITH
15% INTEREST CLAIM AMOUNT Rs. 63639/- PAID
AMOUNT Rs. 36300/- ARBITRARILY LESS PAID Rs.

27339/- NOT PAID ACCORDING TO RULES OF THE
MOT RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicant/Petitioner is owned of car No. PB09
N 0398 and it was insured by the respondent No. 1 with
its Head Office at Kolkatta for Rs. 5524/- vide Policy No.
401111/31/6100004887 dt. 13.2.2014. That it covered the
period of accident. The policy if being annexed as
Anneure C-1 herewith.
2. That on 23.5.2014 while this applicant was driving from
Amritsar to Kapurthala the car was hit by a truck on NH-
1 near Jandiala Guru. That the report was filed with P S
Jandiala Guru. That the car RC, driving license and the
police report are annexed as Annexures C-2, C-3 and C-
4 respectively herewith.
3. That the damaged car was brought to Satpal Maruti
Mahal, Kapurthala at the instance of employee of the
respondent No 1 Mr. Inderjit Singh through recovery van
on 24.5.2014 for repair after surveyor of the Company
Mr. Jyoti Taneja had done his Job. That the Raja Recovery
Van bill dated 24.5.14 for Rs. 3500/- is annexed as
Annexure C-5 with the petition for ready reference please.
4. That the car, after repairs, was handed over to me on
20.6.14 after petitioner had made full payment to M/S
Satpal Maruti Mahal though cheques. That the payment
from respondent No 1 was not forthcoming for long time.
That the petitioner visited and met Br. Manager but still
payment was not made. That petitioner issued a Legal
Notice dt. 5.9.14 to respondents No. 1 and 2 by REGD.
Post. That the Legal Notice may please be read as part of
this petition. That on 8.9.14 a payment of Rs. 36300/- was

made in my SB a/c but arbitrarily and wrongly Rs. 27339/
- were deducted by respondent No. 1. That the petitioner
received a letter dt. 15.9.14 from the respondent No. 1.
That aggrieved by less payment petitioner sent another
Legal Notice dt. 28.9.14 to respondent No. 1 and 2 but no
reply or payment is made till date hence this application/
petition. That the Annexures C-6, C-7 and C-8,
respectively are annexed here with this petition for ready
reference please.
PYAYERS:
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed to direct the
respondent No. 1 and 2 to pay me due amount with 15%
interest less paid on 8.9.14 to summon the entire record of
the case for Hon'ble Forum’s perusal, to produce rules of
the respondents 1 and 2 for passing accident claims, pass
such order/direction deem fit and proper by Hon'ble Forom
in the facts and circumstances of the case, and pay costs to
the petitioner. That the petitioner is Senior Citized (70+) and
deserves early hearing
Date : December 12, 2014 Petitioner-in-Person

Kapurthala
IN THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, KAPURTHALA 144 601
AFFIDAVIT
I Baldev Singh son of Late S. Kartar Singh and resident
of 245, Urban Estate, Kapurthala-144 601 do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:
1. That my date of birth is 12.12.1944 (twelve December
nineteen forty four). Therefore Senior Citizen.
2. That I have filed an application/Petition in the Distt.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala dated
12.12.2014 for due payment of less paid car accident
insurance claim with 15% interest of my car no. PB09 N
0398 with costs.
3. That the facts and allegations in the application/Petition
dated December 12, 2014 are correct and genuine one.
Deponent
Declaration:
I, the above named deponent do hereby declare that
the facts stated in the above affidavit are correct and true to
the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed therein.
Dated: 11.4. 2015 Deponent

Kapurthala 144 601
ANNEXURE C-1
ANNEXURE C-2
ANNEXURE C-3
True Copy
Petitioner
ANNEXURE C-4
True Copy
Petitioner
ANNEXURE C-5
True Copy
Petitioner
ANNEXURE C-6
REGD.
Baldev Singh 245, Urban Estate,

Kapurthala 144 601
September 5, 2014.
1. Br. Manager,
Sultanpur Road,
Near Distt. Courts,
Kapurthala 144 601 (Punjab)
2. Chairman,
Kolkatta 700 071.
Subject : LEGAL NOTICE
1. That the Car No. PB09 N 0398 and it was insured by

Mr. Inderjit Singh employee of your office in the name
of Ms. Neelam Rani, Policy No. 401111/31/6100004887
dt. 13.2.2014 at a cost of Rs. 5524/- vide cheque of PSB,
The Mall Kapurthala. That I am owner of the car.
2. That on 23.5.2014 while I was driving the car from
Amritsar to Kapurthala a truck hit my car near Jandiala
Guru and car turned turtle twice and hit otherside of the
road. The matter was reported P S Jandiala Guru and
your office. Damaged car was brought to Kapurthala by
tow vehicle and given to Satpal Maruti Mahal for repair
at the instance of Mr. Inderjit Singh on 24.5.14. It was

repaired and handed over to me on 20.6.14 after its repair
charges were paid by me to Mr. Satpal Singh, through
cheque.
3. That the surveyor appointed by the Co. Mr. Jyoti Taneja,
had accompanied and taken all the photos of the site of
accident on 24.5.14 but while submitted bills/papaers to
the company made some arbitrary and wrong
deductions. He had never pointed out or talked to owner
of Satpal Maruti Mahal or to me about these arbitrary
and wrong deductions, therefore, acted illegally for
ulterior considerations.
4. That the undersigned visited your office several time and
explained to you (B.M.) all the facts and expected
payment but it is not made till date. That senior citizen
(DOB 12.12.44) is being willfully and deliberately being
harassed with ulterior motives/considerations in gross
violation of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. That you
are being advised to make due payment with 9% interest
within seven day from the receipt of this LEGAL NOTICE
otherwise I shall proceed with the appropriate action in
the matter.
(Baldev Singh)
True Copy
Petitioner
ANNEXURE C-7
ANNEXURE C-8
REGD.
Baldev Singh, M.A. 245, Urban Estate,

Kapurthala 144 601
September 5, 2014.
1. Br. Manager,
Sultanpur Road,
Near Distt. Courts,
Kapurthala 144 601.
2. The Chairman,
Kolkatta 700 071.
Subject : LEGAL NOTICE TWO
1. That your reply dated 15.9.2014 to my Legal Notice of

5.9.2014 is not para and point wise, non-speaking and
evasive. That the facts mentioned in my Legal Notice
are not specifically denied, therefore, admitted but not
implemented by you.
2. That the total bills given by Mr. Satpal Singh owner of
M/s Satpal Maruti Mahal to Mr. Jyoti Tanejta, Suveyor,
were of Rs. 63639/- but amount paid to me in my savings
a/c on 9.9.2014 was Rs. 36300/-. That Rs. 27339/- were
deducted without giving details of deduction and reason
thereof. That neither company nor Mr. Jyoti Taneja
thought it prudent to do that and acted arbitrarily,
therefore, illegally. You are, therefore, again advised to

pay me the balance amount due and also inform me of
details of deductions and reasons thereof within seven
days from the receipt of this Legal Notice otherwise I
shall proceed with the appropriate action in the matter.
3. That you are also advised to give me postal address of
Mr. Jyoti Taneja for appropriate action in the matter.
(Baldev Singh)
True Copy
Petitioner
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
KAPURTHALA.
Baldev Singh
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
(Complaint under C.P.Act)
Written statement on behalf of Opp. Parties no. 1 and 2
Sir,
It is respectfully submitted as under:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
1. That since the present complaint is not maintainable
against the answering opposite, as such the same is liable
to be dismissed.
2. That since there is no deficiency in service on the part
of the opposite parties, the present complaint has been
filed on the basis of wrong and incorrect facts only to
harass the opposite parties. Hence the answering
opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation or
amount as alleged in the present complaint, as such the
same is liable to be dismissed.
3. That since the complaints has not come to this Hon'ble
Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material
and true facts from this Hon'ble Forum ant tried to get
the amount/Compensation in a wrongful manner from
the opposite parties by way of fraud and
misrepresentation of the facts by filling the present
complaint, as such the complaint is liable to be

dismissed.
4. That since no cause of action ever accursed to the
complaint to file the present complaint against the
opposite parties as such the present complaint is liable
to be dismissed.
5. That since the opposite parties have already paid a sum
of Rs. 36,300/- to the complainant on 8.9.2014 through
his bank account vide E. Reference no. 20145000610 by
the bank of the opp. Parties i.e. P.N.B. the bank account
as full and final settlement of his claim as assessed by
Jyoti Taneja (Engineer, Valuer, Surveyor and Loss
Assessors NN507/3, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar), in his
report dated 29.6.2014. Now nothing is due against the
opp. parties, as such the present complaint of the
Complainant is not maintainable even in the eyes of law,
as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. That since the present complaint has been filed on the
basis of wrong and incorrect facts and the present
complaint is false, frivolour and vexatious even to the
knowledge of the complainant as such the same is liable
to be dismissed.
7. That this Hon'ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to
entertain, try and decide the present complaint, as such
the same is liable to be dismissed.
ON MERITS
1. That para no. 1 of the complaint is a matter of record.
2. That para no. 2 of the complaint is a matter of record.
3. That para no. 3 of the complain is denied for want of
knowledge.
4. That para no. 4 of the complaint is matter of record. It is

pertinent to mention that the answering opp. parties
have already paid a sum of Rs. 36300/- to the complainant
through his bank account as full and final settlement of
his claim, as such nothing is due against the opp. parties.
Last para of the complaint is a prayer clause, which is
wrong hence denied. The complainant is not entitled for
any amount as mentioned in the prayer clause.
It is, therefore respectfully prayed that the complaint
of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs,
being false, frivolous and vexatious even to the knowledge
of the complainant, in the interest of justice.
Opposite Parties no. 1 and 2
Throught: B.P. Singh, Advocate, Jal.
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of the above written statement
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and as per
official record of the company and nothing has been kept
concealed therein. Verified at Jalandhar on
Opposite Parties no. 1 and no. 2
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,
KAPURTHALA
Baldev Singh
versus
National Insurance & Others
(Consumer Complaint)
Written reply on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3
Sir,
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1. That the present complaint is not maintainable against
the answering opposite party under the Consumer
Protection Act as the Complainant is not a consumer of
the answering opposite party nor the answering
opposite party has provided any services to the
complainant. Complainant has unnecessarily dragged
the answering opposite party in the interse dispute of
the complainant and the opposite party no. 1 & 2. Hence
the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against
the answering opposite party with heavy cost.
2. That the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and
mis joinder of necessary parties.
3. That No cause of action has ever accrued to the
complainant against the answering opposite party nor
any relief is demanded against the answering opposite
party, hence the present complaint is liable to be
dismissed qua the answering opposite party.
4. That the contents of Para No. 3 of the complaint are

matter or record hence needs no reply.
5. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the complaint so far it
relates to the repair of the vehicle from the Satpal Maruti
Mahal is matter of record, hence needs no reply. It is
submitted that the answering opposite party was
deputed as surveyor by the opposite party no. 1 & 2 and
after the inspection of the damage vehicle answering
opposite party has submitted his report to the opposite
party no. 1 & 2 and the total loss assessed by the
answering opposite party is 37359.53. Copy of the report
is attached herewith. It is submitted that contents of this
para regarding the payment by the opposite party no. 1
& 2 to the complainant and the service of legal notice by
the complainant to the opposite party no. 1 & 2 are not
related to the answering opposite party and to be replied
by the opposite party no. 1 & 2.
Last para is a prayer clause which is absolutely wrong
and denied. Complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the
answering opposite party no. 3 with heavy cost in the
interest of justice, fair-play & equity on the basis of facts
mentioned in the written reply submitted before this Hon'ble
Forum hereinabove.
It is therefore prayed that the present complaint may
kindly be dismissed with heavy cost in the interest of justice,
fair play and equaity.
Opposite party No. 3
Through Counsel
VERIFICATION:
Verified that the contents of above said written reply
of para no. 1 to 3 and from para no. 1 to 4 on merit are
correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing has been
falsely stated. Last para is a prayer clause.
Opposite Party No. 3


KAPURTHALA
Baldev Singh
versus
National Insurance &Others
AFFIDAVIT
I, Jyoti Taneja, Surveyor and Loss Assessor NN-507/3,
Gopal Nagar, JAlandhar do hereby solemnly affirm &
declare as under:
Protection Act as the Complainant is not a consumer of
the answering opposite party nor the answering
opposite party has provided any services to the
complainant. Complainant has unnecessarily dragged

ON MERITS:
admitted hence needs no reply.
matter of record, hence needs no reply.
4. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the complaint so far it
relates to the repair of the vehicle from the Satpal Maruti
Mahal is matter of record, hence needs no reply. It is
submitted that the answering opposite party was
deputed as surveyor by the opposite party no. 1 & 2 and
after the inspection of the damage vehicle answering
opposite party has submitted his report to the opposite
party no. 1 & 2 and the total loss assessed by the
answering opposite party is 37359.53. Copy of the report
is attached herewith. It is submitted that contents of this
para regarding the payment by the opposite party no. 1
& 2 to the complainant and the service of legal notice by
the complainant to the opposite party no. 1 & 2 are not
related to the answering opposite party and to be replied
by the opposite party no. 1 & 2.

Forum hereinabove.
Deponent
VERIFICATION:
Verified that the contents of above mentioned affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing
has been falsely stated or kept concealed therein.
Deponent

KAPURTHALA
Baldev Singh
versus
Sir,
1. That the present complaint is not maintainable against the an-
swering opposite party under the Consumer Protection Act as
there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice is
alleged against the answering opposite party. Complainant has
unnecessarily dragged the answering opposite party in the interse
dispute of the complainant and the opposite party no. 1 & 2.
Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against
2. That the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis join-
der of necessary parties.
3. That No cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant
against the answering opposite party nor any relief is demanded
against the answering opposite party, hence the present
complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the answering opposite
party.
On Merits:
1. That the contents of Para No. 1 of the complaint are admitted
hence needs no reply.
2. That the contents of Para No. 2 of the complaint are matter of
record, hence needs no reply.
3. That the contents of Para No. 3 of the complaint are matter of
record, hence needs no reply.
4. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the complaint, it is submitted
that the vehicle in question was brought to the workshop of the
answering opposite party and the same was handed over to the
complainant duly repair by the answering opposite party to the
satisfaction of the complainant and the repair charges for the
labour & parts were paid by the complainant to the answering
opposite party. It is submitted that dispute regarding less pay-
ment by the opposite party no. 1 & 2 to the complainant is
matter between the complainant and the opposite party no. 1 &
2, hence need not to be reply by the answering opposite party.
Forum hereinabove.
Deponent
VERIFICATION:
Verified that the contents of above mentioned affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing has been falsely
stated or kept concealed therein.
Deponent

KAPURTHALA
Baldev Singh
versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Satpal Singh C/o Satpal Maruti Mahal, Near Bus
Stand, Kapurthala 144 601 do hereby solemnly affirm &
declare as under:
Protection Act as there is no deficiency in service or any
unfair trade practice is alleged against the answering
opposite party. Complainant has unnecessarily dragged

ON MERITS:
admitted hence needs no reply.
4. That in reply to Para No. 4 of the complaint, it is
submitted that the vehicle in question was brought to
the workshop of the answering opposite party and the
same was handed over to the complainant duly repair
by the answering opposite party to the satisfaction of
the complainant and the repair charges for the labour &
parts were paid by the complainant to the answering
opposite party. It is submitted that dispute regarding
less payment by the opposite party no. 1 & 2 to the
complainant is matter between the complainant and the
opposite party no. 1 & 2, hence need not to be replied
by the answering opposite party.
Forum hereinabove.
Deponent
VERIFICATION:
Verified that the contents of above mentioned affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing
has been falsely stated or kept concealed therein.
Deponent

KAPURTHALA 144 601
Baldev Singh
versus
Application against respondent No. 3
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the respondent No. 3 had filed an written statement
on 5.6.2015. That in para no. 4 of the written statement it
was stated on affidavit that, quote, "Copy of the report
is attached herewith". On perusal it was found that no
such report was filed/attached in Hon'ble Forum and in
the copy given to the complainant/petitioner. That it is
a material document and is not supplied with mala faide
intention and with ulterior considerations. Kindly take
note of it and pass an appropriate order as deem fit in
the circumstanced of the case. That respondent 1, 2 & 4
had not filed any document with written statement.
Kapurthala Complainant/Petitioner.
11.6.2015

KAPURTHALA
Baldev Singh
versus
EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT
BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Baldev Singh son of Late S. Kartar Singh
r/o 245, Urban Estate, Kapurthala 144 604.
Most respectfully showeth:
REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

OF RESPONDENT 1 & 2
1. That the content of this para are not correctly stated.
That the complaint is maintainable under the Consumers
Protection Act 1986 because it was insured by the
respondent No. 1 with its H.O. at Kolkatta, respondent
No. 2 and are bound to pay full amount in terms of the
policy and the rules.
2. That the contents of this para are not correctly stated.
That the complainant is less paid accident insurance
claim, therefore, it is deficiency in service. That the
complainant is senior citizen (70+) and is being harassed
by the respondents, first by delayed part payment and
then for remaining balance payment as per policy and
rules.

That the fraud and misrepresentation is by the
respondents and not by complainant who is victim of
misuse of power wrongly used by the respondents. That
the complainant had no hand or say in purchase of items/
parts billing and repair work. Neither the complainant
was shown bills nor consulted at any stage by any of
the respondent yet arbitrary and wrong cuts in payment
were made without reason. However, respondent No. 4
told that all items in bills were replaced and bills were
genuine one, no fake bill was submitted to surveyor.
Complainant has no knowledge of spare parts like any
other layman.
That the cause of action is arbitrary and wrong cuts and
not paid in terms of policy and the rules. That the
complainant is less paid and harassed for long period
being senior citizen.
That after issue of Legal Notice dt. 5.9.14 (Annexure C-
6) a sum of Rs. 36300/- was paid on 8.9.14 with arbitrary
and wrong cuts without any explanation or reason of
cuts imposed. That the payment was delayed by about
70 days, a deliberate harassment to the complainant. That
the payments should be made within one or two weeks
after submission of bills.
That there appears to be fraud in surveyor's report.
As per respondents No 1 and 2 surveyors report is dated
29.6.2014 but as per surveyor's written statement
submitted in Hon'ble Forum on 5.6.2015 it is dated
28.5.2015, therefore, there is contradiction and element
or doubt and not reliable. That the Hon'ble Forum should
summon the original file/record from respondent No. 1

to ascertain the truth.
6. That the content of this para are not stated correctly.
That the correct facts are given in the two Legal Notices
and the complaint. No facts and figures are concealed
nor any has been brought out by the respondents
specifically.
That the Hon'ble Forum has jurisdiction under the
Consumers Protection Act of 1986, therefore, within the
four walls of the law.
REPY TO P.O. OF RESPONDENT No. 3

1, 2 & 3 That the contents of this paras are not correctly
stated. That the respondent was appointed by respondent
No. 1 as surveyor and on the basis of his wrong and arbitrary
report dt. 29.62014, complainant was less paid as accident
claim. He is, therefore, main party who has provided service
under the C.P. Act 86 and had also appointed a person to
take photographs of the accident in the spot at Jandiala Guru
on 24-5-2014. That he had submitted two reports first dated
29.6.2014 to respondent No. 1 and second dated 28.5.2015
before Hon'ble Forum with mala faide and ulterior
consideration. That the reports need to be verified with the
original bills submitted by respondent No. 4.
REPY TO P.O. OF RESPONDENT No. 4

1, 2 & 3 That the contents of this paras are not correctly
stated. That the respondent was appointed for repair of car
and he had brought it alongwith another appointee of the
respondent No. 1 for taking photographs etc. That car was
brought by him for repair in his workshop. I paid the
charges. He had purchased all the parts to be replaced, got

bills and repaired the car at his workshop in about 25 days
and it was delivered to the complainant after taking full
and final payments through cheques. He is required to
justify his bills and repair work before Hon'ble Forum which
had been wrongly and arbitrarily not approved by the
respondent No 3 and less paid by respondent No 1 to the
complainant. Therefore, his party respondent was essential
to bring complete facts before the Hon'ble Forum, so that
just and perfect decision is made in the case.
ON MERITS REPLY TO RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4

1 & 2 That the contents of this paras are admitted, need
no reply.
3. That the contents of this para not specifically denied,
therefore, admitted.
4. That the contents of this paras are correctly stated.
That it is partially admitted and partially not
specifically denied, therefore, admitted. That the
contents of this para and Legal Notice dt. 5.9.14
(Annexure C-6) and Legal Notice dt. 28.9.14
(Annexure C-8) are reiterated. That the respondents
no. 3 had submitted report dated 29.6.14 to
respondent No. 1 but before this Hon'ble Forum he
has submitted report dt. 28.5.15. He had made some
arbitrary and wrong cuts in the bills submitted to
him by respondent No. 4 without any explanation
or assigning any reasons therefore, neither to
respondent No. 4 not to the complainant. That the
respondents No. 3 had made heavy cuts from the
total bills to Rs. 37359.53 but the respondent No. 1
paid only Rs. 36300/- imposing another cut.
That not making full and complete payment of

accident claim and making arbitrary, illegal, wrong
cuts without giving any reasons thereof, 25 days long
period for repair, over 70 days of unduly long period
for partial payment constitutes deficiency in service
under the Consumers Protection Act 1986. That the
Annexures C-1 to C-8 filed with the complaint on
affidavit may please be considered as part of this
evidence affidavit.
That in view of the facts stated above it is
humbly prayed to summon the entire record of case
from the respondent No 1 for perusal and decide
the case in favour of the complainant with costs.
Kapurthala 144 601
June 16, 2015 Deponent
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of the above affidavit as
evidence are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and no part of it is false and nothing has been concealed
therein.
Kapurthala 144 601

June 16, 2015 Deponent
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER

KAPURTHALA
Baldev Singh
Versus
National Insurance Co. Lts. And ors.
(Complaint under C.P. Act.)
EVIDENCE OF THE OPP. PARTY NO.1 AND 2 BY WAY

OF AN AFFIDAVIT
I, Mohinder Singh Khalsa, Assistant Manager, National

Insurance Co. Ltd. D.O.1, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That since the present complaint is not maintainable
against the answering opposite parties, as such the same
is liable to be dismissed.
2. That the complainant approached to the company's
agent for getting insured the car bearing registration no.
PB-09-N-0398 and the same was insured by the opp. part
vide policy No. 4011113/31/13/610000487 valid from
8.3.2014 to 7.3.2015. The copy of the same is Ex.-R-2. The
opp. party issued the insurance policy on the very good
faith of the complainant.
3. That after receiving the intimation of the loss of the car
of the complainant on 26.5.2014 the opp. party deputed
Jyoti Taneja Engineer, Valuer, Surveyor and Loss
Assessors, House No. 507/3, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar to
assess the loss of the vehicle in question and the said
surveyor assessed the loss of the vehicle in question and
submitted his report dated 29.6.2014 containing of four

pages with the company, in which the said surveyor
assessed the loss of Rs. 37,359.53 Ps. The copy of the
letter dated 26.5.2014 is Ex.R-3 and report of the surveyor
dated 29.6.2014 is Ex.R-4.
4. That after receiving the report of the Surveyor the opp.
party going through the merits of the claim filed by the
complainant and going through the report of the
surveyor and after applying the proper application of
mind the opp. party settled the claim of the complainant
and paid a sum of Rs. 36,300/-, the detail of which is as
Rs. 19,040/- cost of parts, Rs. 19318/- as denting, painting
and labour charges i.e. Rs. 38,358/- and Rs. 1000/-
deducted as less excess clause and Rs. 1058/- deducted
as less salvage value, the copy of the said letter dated
8.9.2014 is Ex.R-5.
5. That since the opposite parties have already paid sum
of Rs. 36,300/- to the complainant on 8.9.2014 through
his bank account vide ESC Reference no. 20145000610
by the bank of the opp. parties i.e. P.N.B. tha bank
account as full and final settlement of his claim. Now
nothing is due against the opp. party.
6. That since there is no deficiency in service on the part
of the opposite parties, the present complaint as been
harass the opposite parties. Hence the answering
opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation or
amount as alleged in present complaint.
7. That since the complaint has not come to this Hon'ble
Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material
and true facts from this Hon'ble Forum and tried to get
the amount/compensation in a wrongful manner from

the opposite parties by way of fraud and
misrepresentation of the fact by filling the present
complaint, as such the present complaint is not
maintainable even in the eyes of law.
8. That since the present complaint has been filled on the
basis of wrong and incorrect facts and the present
complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious even to the
knowledge of the complainant.
9. Thas this Hon'ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to
entertain, try and decide the present complaint, as the
opp. party has already paid the amount of Rs. 36,300/-
to the complainant as full and final settlement of the
claim and the opp. party send registered letter dated
15.9.2014 to the complainant regarding this fact. The
copy of the same is Ex.R-6
10. The the affidavit filed by the complainant is not genuine
and not according to the rules. The complainant
concealed the true facts in the affidavit.
Deponent
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of the above affidavit are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and as per official
record of the company and noting has been kept concealed
therein. Verified at Jalandhar on
Deponent
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTED REDRESSAL FORUM,

KAPURTHALA
Dated: 12-8-2015
DCF/KPT/2015/612
Baldev Singh, 245, Urban Estate, Karpurthala-144601

Vs.
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., through Br. Manager,
Sultanpur Road, Kapurthala-144601
2. The Chairman, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 3 Middleton
Strree, Kolkatta-700071.
3. Mr. Jyoti Taneja, Surveyor C/o National Insurance Co.
Ltd., Sultanpur Road, Kapurthala-144601
4. Mr. Satpal Singh, Satpal Maruti Mahal, Near Bus Stand,
Kapurthala-144601
Subject: Certified copy of judgement.

Please find enclosed certified copy of order in Case
No. 23/2015 title Baldev Singh Vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., & Others decided by District Consumer Disputes
Redresal Forum, Kapurthala on 6.8.2015.
Your are requested to collect the extra sets filed by you
in the above referred case within 30 days. In case your do
not collect the extra setes within 30 days, theses sets will be
weeded out under Regulation 20(4)(5) 'Preservation of
Records' of consumer protection regulations, 2005.
Superintendent

KAPURTHALA
Complaint No. 23 of 2015

Date of Isntt. 15.04.2015
Date of Decision: 06.08.2015
Baldev Singh, 245, Urban Estate,

Kapurthala 144601…......….Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., through Br. Manager,
Sultanpur Road, Kapurthala-144601
2. The Chairman, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 3 Middleton
Street, Kolkatta-700071.
3. Mr. Jyoti Taneja, Surveyor C/o National Insurance Co.
Ltd., Sultanpur Road, Kapurthala-144601
4. Mr. Satpal Singh, Satpal Maruti Mahal, Near Bus Stand,
Kapurthala-144601
……Opposite parties
Complain Under Consumer Protection Act.

Before : Sh. A.K. Mehta (President)
Sh. Parkash Singh Lamme (Member)
Mrs. Rajita Sareen (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Bhupinder Pal Singh Adv., Counsel for OP
No.1 & 2
OPs No. 3 & 4 in person.
Order
A.K. Mehta (President)
Complainant Baldev Singh has filed the present
complaint section 12 of Consumer Protection Act (herein
after to be called as C.P. Act) against National Insurance
Company Ltd., etc. opposite parties (OPs) for paying less
claim i.e. Rs. 36,300/- out of Rs. 63,639/- arbitrarily and for a
direction to opposite parties for paying Rs. 27,339/- with
interest 15% per annum.
The case of the complainant is that he is owner of car
No. PB 09 N 0398 and he insured the same with
respondent No. 1 insurance company vide policy No.
401111/31/610000487 dated 13/2/2014 and paid Rs. 5,524/
- as premium; that on 23/5/2014, complainant was
coming from Amritsar to Kapurthala in the said car but
the same was hit by a truck near Jandiala Guru; that
complainant reported the accident to P.S. Jandiala Guru
and also attached RC the car, his driving license with
the police report; that the car was damaged in the
accident and he brought the same to Satpal Maruti
Mahal, Kapurthala at the instance of employee of
respondent No.1 insurance company for repair after
inspection made by surveyor Mr. Jyoti Taneja OP No. 3;
that he paid Rs. 3,500/- for recovery van which brought
his car to Kapurthala; that the car was delivered to him
on 20/6/2014 and complainant made full payment to M/
s Satpal Maruti Mahal through cheque; that complainant
filed the claim with the opposite party No. 1 insurance
company but the insurance company unusually delayed
the claim case due to which reason, he issued a legal
notice dated 5/9/2014 to opposite party No. 1 & 2 and

then on 8/9/2014, a payment of Rs. 36,300/- was made by
opposite party No. 1 in his Saving bank account but
arbitrarily and wrongly, amount of Rs. 27,339/- was
deducted by opposite party No. 1 and due to this reason,
complainant again send a legal notice dated 28/9/2014
to opposite party No. 1 & 2 but neither reply nor any
payment is made by opposite party till the filling of the
complaint. Hence complaint was filed for issuance of
direction to opposite party No. 1 & 2 to pay the due
amount with interest @ 15% per annum alongwith cost
of the complaint.
2. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was
issued to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1
& 2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply
contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections
that complaint is not maintainable against the answering
opposite parties as there was no deficiency in service
on the part of opposite parties and complaint has been
harass the opposite parties and as such, complaint is
liable to be dismissed; that the complaint has not come
to the forum with clean hands and has concealed the
material and true facts in order to get the compensation
in a wrongful manner by way of fraud and
misrepresentation; that no cause of action accrued to
the complainant to file the complaint; that the opposite
parties have paid amount of Rs. 36,300/- to the
complainant on 8/9/2014 through his bank account as
full and final settlement of his claim as assessed by
surveyor Jyoti Taneja in his report dated 29/6/2014 and

as such, not nothing is due to the complainant and
complaint is not maintainable; that this forum has got
no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. On
merits, it was not denied if complainant is owner of the
car in question or he got the same insured with opposite
party No. 1 & 2. However it was denied for want of
knowledge if the car was brought to Satpal Maruti
Mahal, Kapurthala at the instance of employee of
opposite party No.1 for repair after the report of
surveyor. It was admitted that amount of Rs. 36,300/-
has already been paid to the complainant through bank
as full and final settlement of his claim and now nothing
is due to him. All other allegations mentioned in the
complaint were also denied with a prayer to dismiss the
complaint with cost.
3. Opposite party No. 3 also appeared in person and filed
reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary
objections that complaint is not maintainable against the
answering opposite party as complainant is not
consumer of the answering opposite party nor
answering opposite party provide any services to the
complaint and complainant has unnecessarily dragged
the answering opposite party in the present complaint
though dispute of the complainant is only with opposite
party No. 1 & 2 and as such, complaint is liable to be
dismissed against him with heavy cost; that the
complaint is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of
necessary parties and no cause of action has arisen to
the complainant against the answering opposite party
nor any relief has been demanded against the answering

opposite party. On merits, it was not denied if
complainant is owner of the car in question and the same
was insured with opposite party insurance company. It
was also not denied if car was involved in a accident
and was repaired from Satpal Maruti Mahal, Kapurthala.
It was asserted that the answering opposite party was
deputed as surveyor by opposite party No. 1 & 2 and
after inspection of the damaged vehicle, answering
opposite party filed the report to opposite party No. 1
& 2 and the total loss assessed by him was Rs. 37,359.53/
-. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were
denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. Opposite party No. 4 appeared in the forum and filed
reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary
objections that the present complaint is not maintainable
as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade
practice on the part of answering opposite party and
complainant has unnecessarily dragged the answering
opposite party in the dispute which is primarily between
the complainant and opposite party No. 1 & 2 and as
such complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost; that
complaint is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of
necessary parties and no cause of action has accrued to
the complainant against the answering opposite party
nor any relief has been demanded against him. On
merits, the answering opposite party has not denied the
ownership of the car in question and its involvement in
the accident and its repair at his workshop. It was
asserted that car in question was brought to the
workshop of answering opposite party and after due

repair, the same was delivered to the complainant and
repair charges were paid by complainant. It was asserted
that dispute regarding less payment is a dispute between
the complainant and opposite party No. 1 & 2. All other
allegation mentioned in the complaint were denied with
a prayer to dismiss the complaint with cost.
5. Parties were given adequate opportunities to produce
evidence in order to prove their respective case. The
complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.
CA and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence. In
order to rebut the evidence of complainant, learned
counsel for opposite party No. 1 & 2 tendered evidence
affidavit Ex. R1 and documents Ex. R2 to Ex. R6 and
closed evidence. Sh. Jyoti Taneja surveyor opposite party
No. 3 tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex. OP3/A
and closed evidence. Sh. Satpal Singh opposite party
No. 4 tendered his own affidavit Ex. OP4/A and closed
evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant in person and learned
counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and opposite
party No. 3 & 4 in person and have also gone through
the file.
7. The complainant contended that he is owner of the car
in question which he got insured from opposite party
No. 1 & 2. He contended that while coming from
Amritsar, the car in question met with an accident near
Jandiala Guru and was badly damaged. He contended
that he gave intimation to opposite party No. 1 & 2 and
surveyor was deputed to inspect the vehicle, who
inspected the damaged car and thereafter directed the

complainant to get the car repaired and he brought the
car to the workshop "Satpal Maruti Mahal, Kapurthala"
Where it was repaired. He contended that he filed claim
with the opposite party insurance company but opposite
party insurance company was delaying the settlement
of the claim due to which reason, he served a legal notice
on the opposite party insurance company and only
thereafter opposite party insurance company made part
of the payment i.e. Rs. 36,300/- whereas his claim was of
Rs. 63,639/- and as such amount of Rs. 27,339/- was with
held without any justification and without intimating
any reason to the complainant. He contended that he
again served a legal notice when opposite party
insurance company did not pay the withheld amount
but inspite of legal notice, remaining payment was not
released to the complainant and this conduct of opposite
party insurance company caused harassment and mental
agony to the complainant and then complainant filed
the complaint and as such, the same is required to be
allowed and opposite party insurance company is
required to be directed to pay the remaining withheld
amount alongwith litigation expenses.
8. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 & 2
contended that the accident allegedly took place on 23/
5/2014 and thereafter, time was taken for the inspection
of the car by surveyor and then in its repair in the
workshop. He contended that only thereafter,
complainant filed the claim with the opposite party
insurance company and after pursuing all the documents
and report of the surveyor, the claim was released to the

complainant in his bank account on 8/9/2014 i.e. at the
earliest. He contended that claim was settled in
accordance with report of the surveyor and complainant
could not point out as to why the report be not believed.
He contended that complainant have filed this false
complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with
special cost.
9. Opposite party No. 3 contended that he is simply a
surveyor who inspected the car in question and gave
his report and as such, he has been unnecessarily
dragged in this complaint whereas no relief has been
claimed against him and dispute in only between
complainant and opposite party No. 1 & 2 as such
complaint is liable to be dismissed with special cost.
10. Opposite party No. 4 contended that he is not directly
involved in this complaint as he simply repaired the car
in question at the desire of complainant, when
complainant himself brought the car in question to this
workshop. He contended that he repaired the car in
question to the satisfaction of complainant and charged
the amount as spent by him on the parts and as labour
charges and moreover no relief has been claimed against
him by the complainant and complaint is liable to be
dismissed against him.
11. The ownership of the car in question in the name of
complainant and its insurance with opposite party No.
1 & 2 are not is dispute in this case. It is also not in
dispute between the parties that the car in question was
involved in a accident and was damaged on 23/5/2014.
It is also not in dispute that surveyor was deputed by

opposite party No. 1 & 2 who inspected the car in
question and gave his report Ex. R4. The only dispute
between the parties is that complainant alleged that he
spent amount of Rs. 63,639/- on repair of the car whereas
opposite party No. 1 & 2 insurance company paid only
Rs. 36,300/- as claim and arbitrarily withheld
Rs. 27,339/-. The contention of the opposite party No. 1
& 2 insurance company is that they have made the
payment in accordance with report of the surveyor.
Report of surveyor as been proved on the file as Ex. R4.
As per report, the total cost of the parts repaired was
Rs. 19,040.78/- and the total labour charges were Rs.
19,318.75/- and after deducting excess clause and value
of slawage, the total amount comes to Rs. 36,300/- which
was paid to the complainant. This fact is also admitted
by complainant that he received the payment of Rs.
36,300/- from opposite party No. 1 & 2 directly in his
bank account. During the course of arguments,
complainant contended that he gave many bills of the
parts changed for repair of the car but many bills have
not been taken into account while settling his claim. Due
to this reason, opposite party No. 1 & 2 were directed to
produce the settlement file in Forum and the same was
produced and was shown to the complainant but
complainant could not point out any bill which has not
been taken into account while settling the claim. The
contention of the complainant is simply that he paid
more amount to opposite party No. 4 for repair of the
car but opposite party No. 1 & 2 have paid less amount.
There is no force in the contention of the complainant

as opposite party No. 1 & 2 is to settle the claim in
accordance with terms and conditions of the insurance
policy and surveyor has given the report which is quite
in detail and loss have been divided in three categories
i.e. metal, plastic and glass and have assessed the loss
as per terms and conditions of the policy and due
amount of the parts replaced and labour charges were
determined and after deducting excess clause and
salvage value of the parts, amount of Rs. 36,300/- was
determined and the same was paid to the complainant.
Moreover complainant could not point out any defect
or reason as to why the surveyor report be not believed
and why it should be ignored. Otherwise surveyor report
is a authenticated document and can be ignored only in
case of sound and logical reasons. In case titled "Sikka
Paper Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." 2009
Colume 3 Consumer Law Today, Page 417, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India observed that surveyor report
is not the last word but then there must be legitimate
reason for departing from such report. In the case in
hand also, the surveyor had filed the surveyor report
and the same is quite in detail and damage has been
categorized in different heads and loss was assessed.
The complainant could not point out as to why the report
should be ignored and should not be relied upon.
Otherwise opposite party insurance company have paid
the claim in accordance with report of surveyor and
complainant have failed to point out as to which amount
has not been allowed by opposite party insurance
company wrongly or arbitrarily. As such, it can be safely

held that complainant has failed to prove his case on
the file.
12. In the light of above discussion the complaint fails and
the same is hereby dismissed. However in the peculiar
circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their
own costs. Copies of the order be send to the parties
free of costs as per law.
File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

6/8/2015 Member Member President
APPENDIX-1
REGD.
The Police commissioner,

Amritsar 143001
Sub: REPORT NOT SUPPLIED IN THE MATTER OF DDR

(DASTI) 360 DT. 23.5.2014 P.S. JANDIALA GURU DISTT.
AMRITSAR
Sir,
With due respect I may submit that I met with an
accident near Jandiala Guru. A truck had wrongly hit my
car on 23.5.2014. A DDR was filed (Copy enclosed). I
requested SHO, Jandiala Guru (Asr.) to supply me report in
the matter (copy enclosed) but it is not supplied till date.
Kindly direct the SHO to supply me copy of it. Thanking
your
Yours sincerely,
11.6.2015
(Baldev Singh)
245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala 144 601
APPENDIX-2
APPENDIX-3
REGD.
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Modi,
P.M. of India
New Delhi.
Respected Sir,
Sub: MY COMPLAINT DT. 2.10.2015 TO YOUR GOODSELF
(COPY ENCLOSED) NOT ACTED UPON
The Additional Secretary, Food & Supply, Govt. of
Punjab, Chandigarh in his letter dt. 11.2.2016 (copy enclosed)
had wrongly and illegally advised me, in reply to my
complaint dt. 2.10.2015 send to yourgoodself, that I can file
an appeal against the Order of President, Distt. Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala. That the time limit
for appeal is 30 days. It cannot be filed now and this is to
close the very important matter of corruption and injustice.
It was send to you keeping in mind your public stand against
corruption and injustice. I once again request that my
complaint as prayed must be investigated and acted upon
to eradicate corruption and injustice.
I also intend to publish the entire record of the case
and bring into the public domain so that public becomes
careful and aware of the facts at the ground level. How a 72
plus senior citizen is harassed and mentally tortured.
Encls : 2 Yours sincerely
(Baldev Singh)
245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala (Pb.), Pin 144 601
Email: baldevsingh300@gmail.com
Mobile : 098151-20919
APPENDIX-4
APPENDIX-5
APPENDIX-6
REGD.
To
The Chief Secretary
Govt. of Punjab
Chandigarh
Sir, Subject: Complaint against Sh. A K Mehta, President

Distt. Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
I am referring to PMO letter No. PMOPG/D/2016/

0066346 dated 14.3.2016.
Please inform me of action taken on my complaint and
supply me copy of it.
Thanking you in anticipation
Yours sincerely
(Baldev Singh)
Dt. 27.4.2016 245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala (Pb.) Pin 144 601
Mobile : 098151-20919
APPENDIX-7
APPENDIX-8
Government of Punjab
Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
(Consumer Protection Act Branch)
To.
Sh. Baldev Singh
245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala (Punjab)
Pin Code - 144601
Memo No. 1/3/2015-1 CPA/788292/1

Date: Chandigarh 01/07/2016
Sub: My complaint dt. 2.10.2015 to yourself (copy enclosed)

not acted upon.
Reference your letter dated 7.3.2016 received through

the office of Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, on the subject
cited above.
2. In this regard, it is stated that on receipt of your
complaint, you were informed vide this department's
memo no. 01/31/2015-1 CPA/688095/1 Dated 11.2.2016
that the comment w.r.t. your complaint have been
obtained from the President, District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala, Your complaint no. 23 of
2015 regarding less payment of Car accident claim has
been decided by the President, District Forum,
Kapurthala and if you are not satisfied with the orders
so passed, you may prefer an appeal as per the

provisions of Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
3. Now, vide your instant complaint, you have come with
the plea that the Joint Secretary, Food Supply has given
your wrong information that you may prefer an appeal
against the order passed by the President of the District
Forum, Kapurthala because the time limit to file an
appeal is 30 days. In this regard, it was stated that Section
15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides
specific time limit to prefer an appeal against the order
passed by the District Consumer Forum. You could have
acted upon as per the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
Superintendent
Dated: Chandigarh
Endst No. 1/3/2015-I CPA/
A copy of above is forwarded to Sh. V.B. Hariharan,

Section Officer, Prime Minister's office, New Delhi w.r.t. his
letter No. PMOPG/2016/0066346/dt. 14.3.2016.
Superintedent.
APPENDIX-9
REGD.
Hon’ble Capt. Amrinder Singh Ji,

Cheif Minister,
Govt. of Punjab,
Chandigarh.
Sir, Sub: Vigilance Inquiry into arbitrary and illegal order

Dt. 6-8-2015 passed by President A.K. Mehta
Distt. Consumer Disputes Forum, Kapurthala
With due respect I beg to submit that I had filed my

complaint/petition before DCDRF, Kapurthala but it was
dismissed arbitrarily evidence and the law for ulterior
considerations. Therefore, I request you for vigilance inquiry
and legal action in the matter. However, I may inform you
that appeal period of 30 days has lapsed and I do not want
to go into that option. That complete case along with Order
dt. 6-3-15 comprising of 62 pages is enclosed herewith for
ready reference and action please.
Your sincerely,
29-5-2017
(Baldev Singh)
245, Urban Estate, Kapurthala
Mobile: 98151-20919

Corruption, Root of Injustic

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Corruption, Root of Injustic

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

“In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty

but organised robbery?”

First Edition 2017

Hospital Amritsar in 108 van. Two of sympathetic on-

Kapurthala. I told him about T.S. Walia Motors. He said, "no

the bills were shown to Satpal Singh owner of Satpal Maruti

In history we find many examples that many States,

28.4.2017 Baldev Singh

Subject: Car Accident Insurance Claim Not Paid For Not

63639/-. When after about two weeks I visited office to

August 18, 2014 (Baldev Singh)

Sir, Subject: SUPPLY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASI

I met with an accident on 23.5.2014 and had filed an

P.S. I am seventy years old and have not fully recovered

assessed from some other bills of Labour Rs. 45500/- and

I, Baldev Singh son of Late Sh. Kartar Singh and resident

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. through

Application/Petition under Consumer Protection Act-1986

AMOUNT Rs. 36300/- ARBITRARILY LESS PAID Rs.

MOT RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

this petition. That on 8.9.14 a payment of Rs. 36300/- was

Date : December 12, 2014 Petitioner-in-Person

IN THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

Dated: 11.4. 2015 Deponent

Baldev Singh 245, Urban Estate,

Subject : LEGAL NOTICE

1. That the Car No. PB09 N 0398 and it was insured by

at the instance of Mr. Inderjit Singh on 24.5.14. It was

Baldev Singh, M.A. 245, Urban Estate,

Subject : LEGAL NOTICE TWO

1. That your reply dated 15.9.2014 to my Legal Notice of

therefore, illegally. You are, therefore, again advised to

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER

Written statement on behalf of Opp. Parties no. 1 and 2

complaint, as such the complaint is liable to be

4. That para no. 4 of the complaint is matter of record. It is

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

4. That the contents of Para No. 3 of the complaint are

Opposite party No. 3

Opposite Party No. 3

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

Written reply on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3

complainant against the answering opposite party nor

interest of justice, fair-play & equity on the basis of facts

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

Written reply on behalf of Opposite Party No. 4

party, hence the present complaint is liable to be

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

Application against respondent No. 3

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

Most respectfully showeth:

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

3. That the contents of this para are not correctly stated.

summon the original file/record from respondent No. 1

REPY TO P.O. OF RESPONDENT No. 3

REPY TO P.O. OF RESPONDENT No. 4

charges. He had purchased all the parts to be replaced, got

ON MERITS REPLY TO RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4

That not making full and complete payment of

Kapurthala 144 601

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER