The court established that the compensation awarded should reflect the total loss as assessed by the surveyor, leading to a modification of the original order.

1. This appeal, filed under S.41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) is directed against order dated 29.11.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as "District Commission" for short), in Complaint Case No. CC / 2016/28, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant herein alleging deficiency in service against the respondent No. 1 herein in repudiating his insurance claim was partly allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay to the complainant / appellant herein within 45 days Rs.7,89,253 (Seven Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Three) against loss to the insured vehicle with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint, compensation for mental agony Rs.25,000 (Twenty Five Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.3,000 (Three Thousand). Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of award, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case, necessary for its disposal, are that the appellant / complainant got his vehicle bearing registration No. CG - 10 - R0847 insured from the respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 - Insurance Company for the period between 23.6.2014 to 22.6.2015 midnight. During the said policy term the insured vehicle met with an accident on 26.8.2014. The incident was intimated to the concerned police station. The repairing bills of the damaged vehicle was of Rs.12,85,000. Then insurance claim along with all the necessary documents was submitted before the Insurance Company but the same was not settled. On 23.12.2015 legal notice was sent to the Insurance Company, in reply of which the respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 - Insurance Company informed vide letter dated 24.12.2015 that driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective license at the time of accident, hence the claim was repudiated. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service in repudiation of claim, the complaint was filed seeking direction for payment of Rs.12,85,000 against estimated loss / total loss along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint and Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental agony with cost of litigation and any other relief the District Commission deems fit.

3. The respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 in its written version has refuted the allegations of deficiency in service and averred that the appellant / complainant submitted photocopy of permit, fitness and driving license of the driver. When the driving license was verified from the RTO Bilaspur then it revealed that at the time of accident the driver Bhaskar was not having license for driving transport vehicle, hence the claim was repudiated. It was also stated that on intimation the surveyor Mr. Utkarsh Shingwekar was appointed who surveyed the vehicle and assessed the loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs.10,89,253 and salvage value at Rs.3,00,000 after deduction of salvage value, he assessed the loss at Rs.7,89,253 and submitted his report. But as the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid and effective driving license, the claim was repudiated and in doing so no deficiency in service was committed. The respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4. The respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 2 not filed their written version hence their opportunity of filing written version was closed by the District Commission.

5. Learned District Commission considering the rival contentions and documents placed on record partly allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pa