Date of pronouncement:-10.02.2026 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 25.01.2018 in CC No. 240/13 of the State Commission Telangana)

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

5th Floor, Towar-1, Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector 62, Nodia-201301.

….. Appellant Versus Danthuri Venkatesh S/o D. Yellaiah Age 40 years, Owner of TATA Diesel Vehicle T/R No. AP-09-VVTR-7965, R/o H. No. 8-27 Adarshnagar Colony, Narketpally Nalgonda District, TS ……. Respondent (Respondent No. 2 deleted from array of parties vide Order dated

04.11.2025)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER Appearance at the time of arguments:-

For Appellant: Mr. Anshul Mehral, Advocate (VC)

For Respondent No.1: Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate &

Mr. Abhisek Das, Advocate Ms. Megha Shaw, Advocate For Respondent No.2: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate Mr. Kaustubh Punj, Advocate JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER

ORDER

1. Present Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company/opposite party/Appellant assailing Order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) whereby the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay Rs.23,75,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till date of payment, along with cost of Rs.5,000/-, towards total loss of the vehicle insured by the complainant/respondent herein.

Appellant and respondent are hereinafter referred to as opposite party and complainant respectively, as appearing in the complaint, for sake of convenience.

2. The facts fall within a narrow compass. Complainant/Respondent purchased TATA Diesel vehicle bearing registration No. AP-09-VVTR- 7965 on 18.06.2013 and the same was insured with the opposite party/appellant for IDV (Insurer Declared Value) of Rs.25 lakhs from

18.06.2013 to 17.06.2014. On the very next date of the purchase, on 19.06.2013 vehicle accidently hit the divider and fell down from a height of 40 feet from the bridge into a ditch. Consequently, the chassis of the vehicle was broken and the vehicle was severely damaged. The incident was reported at P.S. RGI Airport as well as to the Insurance Company/O.P. The Insurance Company/OP deputed a Surveyor to the spot, who inspected the vehicle and advised to shift the vehicle to the workshop. Claim was thereafter lodged by the complainant along with relevant documents for total loss of the vehicle. However, since the Insurance Company/opposite party failed to settle the claim, complainant was constrained to file the complaint after issuing a legal notice dated 18.10.2013. Complainant thereby claimed payment of IDV of Rs.25,00,000/- along with compensation and interest paid towards EMI against the loan taken for purchase of the vehicle.

3. Complaint was allowed by the learned State Commission as noticed above. Aggrieved against the same, present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company/opposite party.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/opposite party submits that the complainant failed to furnish the necessary documents after getting the vehicle repaired despite communication by the Surveyor and as such vide letter dated 03.10.2013, the claim was closed as ‘no claim’. He further submits that the Surveyor on inspection of the vehicle had given a detailed assessment report, whereby the loss was assessed at Rs.11,39,880/-. Further, though the vehicle was repairable as per the Surveyor, complainant asserted for total loss of the vehicle, in terms of estimates obtained from M/s Aditya Auto Engineers & Technicians (Authorized Service Centre). He submits that the repudiation had been correctly made by the Insurance Company since the complainant failed to produce the vehicle for re-inspection as well as did not submit the requisite documents to the panel Surveyor along with bills for repair of th