AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR Date of Institution: 01/02/2024 Date of Final Hearing: 16/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 08/08/2024 APPEAL No.- FA/24/63 IN THE MATTER OF :

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office: Hotel Laxman Avenue Building, JAGDALPUR Dist. BASTAR (C.G.) … O. P. No.1 /Appellant Through: Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate Vs.

1. Tiwari Sethi, S/o. Late Shri Kangalu Sethi, R/o. Vora Camp, Ward No.04, Kirandul, Dantewada, Dist. DAKSHIN BASTAR (C.G.) … Complainant/Respondent No.1 Through: Shri Abhijit Singh Tomar, Advocate

2. Shri M.A. Rawani, R/o. Ashiyana, Sector-01, Kailash Residency, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.) … O.P. No.2/Respondent No.2 Through: Ex-parte.

CORAM: -

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER PRESENT: -

Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Abhijit Singh Tomar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Proceeded ex-parte against respondent No.2 vide order dated 18.06.2024.

O RDE R

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 15.12.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in complaint case No.CC/2022/10 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein was partly allowed and the opposite party No.1/ appellant was directed to pay within one month Rs.74,050/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand & Fifty) to the complainant/ respondent No.1 herein as compensation for loss to the insured vehicle with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 14.10.2022 till realization failing which the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. Compensation towards physical, mental and financial harassment Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand) were also directed to be paid by the opposite party No.1/ appellant to the complainant/ respondent No.1. Feeling aggrieved the insurance company opposite party No.1 has preferred this appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a truck owned by the complainant/ respondent No.1 bearing registration No.CG-18-H-1068 was insured by the opposite party No.1/ appellant for the period between 31.03.2020 to 30.03.2021, during which on 25.10.2020 the said vehicle met with an accident and got damaged which incurred expenses of Rs.5,20,696/- in repairing. Insurance claim was preferred but the insurance company only paid Rs.1,90,450/- as against Rs.5,20,696/- alleging which as deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking balance amount of expenses incurred in repairing of the vehicle.

3. The opposite party No.1/ appellant resisted the complaint on the ground that on receipt of claim spot surveyor Mr. Satnam Singh Dhanua and thereafter Surveyor and Loss Assessor Mr. M.A. Rawani were appointed. Mr. M.A. Rawani conducted final survey and re-inspection of the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,33,000/- in his report dated 25.03.2021. On receipt of survey report the opposite party No.1/ appellant insurance company sent several letters to the complainant/ respondent No.1 for submission of cash receipt and tax invoices and got the bills of repairs verified from Shri Rahul Bhattacharya, who after verification of available cash receipt and tax invoices assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,90,450/- and accordingly the said amount paid in which no deficiency in service was committed.

4. The opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 herein remained ex-

parte before the District Commission.

5. Learned District Commission in the impugned order arrived at a conclusion that the opposite party No.1/ appellant has committed deficiency in service in not paying the amount of insurance claim and on the basis of bills submitted by the complainan