JUDGEMENT

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act

2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 13/09/2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) (hereinafter called the “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2019/02, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties / appellants herein insurance company were jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant / respondent within 30 days compensation against repairing expenditure of the insured vehicle Rs.1,06,258/- (One Lac Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Eight) along with simple interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 18.01.2019 till realization, failing which the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. The opposite parties/ appellants were also directed to pay within one month compensation for mental agony Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand). Regarding salvage of the insured vehicle it was directed that the complainant/ respondent shall keep the salvage. Feeling aggrieved the opposite parties have come up before us.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent is the registered owner of Bolero vehicle No.CG-19-BF-4273 for which insurance cover was obtained from the opposite parties/ appellants insurance company for the period between 22.12.2017 to 21.12.2018, during which period on 15.06.2018 the said vehicle met with an accident an suffered damages. Immediate intimation was given to the opposite parties/ appellants insurance company. Surveyor was sent on the spot, who surveyed the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.44,000/- (Forty Four Thousand), whereas estimated loss to the vehicle was of Rs.1,69,600/- (One Lac Sixty Nine Thousand Six Hundred). Later on along with all requisite documents insurance claim of Rs.1,41,677/- (One Lac Forty One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Seven), which was not paid hence alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking relief for payment of Rs.1,41,677/- along with interest and compensation for mental agony etc.

3. The opposite parties/ appellants insurance company in their joint written version denied the allegations leveled against them. However the claim was not settled by the opposite parties/ appellants insurance company but as per their defence taken in the written version a letter was sent on 27.08.2018 through registered post to the complainant / respondent for submitting discharge voucher and cancelled cheque for the purpose of making payment of Rs.44,000/- (Forty Four Thousand) i.e. the loss assessed by the surveyor but the complainant / respondent himself stopped the insurer to make such payment.

4. Learned District Commission in the impugned order arrived at the conclusion that the opposite parties/ appellants insurance company are jointly and severally liable for payment of actual bill of repairing paid by the complainant / respondent after deducting 25% depreciation on the parts and directed for payment of Rs.1,06,258/- (One Lac Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Eight) as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.

5. We have heard final arguments of learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties and perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant and the citations relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Bhandarkar has argued that the District Commission erred in not considering report of the surveyor and the assessment made by him. Learned District Commission ought to have considered the net liability on repair basis assessed by the surveyor in his survey report to the tune of Rs.44,000/- (Forty Four Thousand) for payment of which the appellants insurer were ready but the respondent/ complainant himself