IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI SECOND APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2025 (Against the Order dated 17th July 2025 in Appeal SC/22/FA/79/2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhattisgarh)

WITH NC/IA/12799/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/12800/2025 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING TRANSLATION DOCUMENTS)

ANAND PRATAP SINGH S/o. Shri Amar Nath Singh LCH-06, MPHB WARD NO. 15, KUMHARI, PATAN, DURG,CHHATTISGARH-492001 Mob. No.9713009004 Petitioner(s)

Versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Through its Regional Manager, R/o 2ND FLOOR, PHASE 1, LIC CAMPUS INVESTMENT BUILDING, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, PANDRI, RAIPUR,CHHATTISGARH-492001 Respondent(s)

SECOND APPEAL NO. 712 OF 2025 (Against the Order dated 17th July 2025 in Appeal SC/22/FA/74/2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhattisgarh)

WITH NC/IA/12796/2025 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING TRANSLATION DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/12795/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

ANAND PRATAP SINGH S/o. Shri Amar Nath Singh LCH-06, MPHB WARD NO. 15, KUMHARI, PATAN, DURG,CHHATTISGARH-492001 Mob. No.9713009004 Petitioner(s)

Versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Through its Regional Manager, R/o 2ND FLOOR, PHASE 1, LIC CAMPUS INVESTMENT BUILDING, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, PANDRI, RAI PUR, CH HATTISGARH-492001 Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Appellant(s) Mr. R.K BHAWNANI, ADV (VC)

Dated : 03.11.2025 ORDER

1. Heard counsel for appellant SA/711/2025 and SA/712/2025 have been filed with a delay of 12 days as per the calculation made by the Registry. The delay is condoned after considering the reasons stated in IA/12799/2025 and IA/12795/2025, respectively, and the cases are taken up on merits.

2. These two SAs have been filed challenging the common order dated 17.07.2025 of the State Commission under which two First Appeals, one filed by the insurance company viz. FA/74/2025 and the other filed by the complainant/applicant herein i.e., FA/79/2025, were taken up together. Both these First Appeals ohallenged the order of the District Commission dated 02.01.2025 in CC/2023/67. Both the First Appeals were dismissed and the order of the District Commission was upheld.

SA/712/2025

3. This Second Appeal challenges the above-stated order dated 17.07.2025 of the State Commission in FA/74/2025 filed by the respondent insurance company. This First Appeal was dismissed by the State Commission. The insurance company has not challenged the said order dated 17.07.2025 of the State Commission. As the appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed, strictly speaking, there is no need for the complainant (appellant herein) to file the Second Appeal challenging the order of the State Commission in FA/74/2025, which is in his favour. The counsel for the appellant claims that he has filed SA/712/2025 only as per the advice of the Registry as the State Commission order was a common order in two First Appeals. However, it is our considered view that it is not necessary.EDCBA SA/711/2025

4. This Second Appeal challenges the order dated 17.07.2025 of the State Commission in FA/79/2025, which was filed by the complainant (appellant herein) for enhancement of the compensation. Earlier, the District Commission had partly allowed the complaint with direction to the OP to pay to the complainant Rs. 13,44,925/- along with 6% interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment, along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. It is contended by the appellant herein that the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.24,30,000/-. It was a case of total loss after the accident, as the estimate given by the workshop/dealer was Rs.46,97,840/-. It is admitted that the original purchase value of the vehicle was about Rs.30,00,000/-, and the same was bought about 02 years 10 months prior to the date of the accident.

5.

In the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions have been listed:

"1. That the Hon'ble Stat