BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD FA NO.810/2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC No.194/2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR.

Between :

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., R/by its Authorised Signatory, Door No.8-6-126, Near Kothi Bomma Circle, Kothirampur, Karimnagar-505 001, Rep. by its authorised signatory, Shaik Ismail, S/o.Sri Ramtulla Saheb, age : 40 years, Occ:Senior Executive ( Claims Legal)

of the R/o.IV Floor, NE Plaza Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. …Appellant/

Opposite party And Surekha Karra, W/o.Sudhakar , aged 55 years, R/o.H.No.8-2-510, Kattarampur, Karimnagar – 505 001. …. Respondent/

Complainant Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.M.V.R.Suresh & Associates Counsel for the Respondent : Party in person.

CORAM:Hon’ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Incharge President, And Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao, Member-J.

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE .

Oral Order:(Per Hon’ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, I/c.President.)

1). This is an appeal filed u/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,2019 against the order dt.15.9.2020 of the District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar made in C.C.No.194/2017.

The appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.194/2017.

2). For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3). The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The complainant had purchased Maruti Swift VDI BS IV Model RC No.TSO2EG7217 and it was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.0G-17-1810-1801-00006540. The date of commencement of policy was 6.4.2017 and valid till 5.4.2018. On 28.9.2017 the car met with an accident and was badly damaged. The complainant lodged a complaint with the concerned police station and after investigation a panchanama was filed on 29.9.2017 and the same was informed to the opposite party insurance company. The authorised service centre charged Rs.1,36,000/-, but the surveyor assessed the loss only at Rs.95,226/-. On receipt of the claim, the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dt.14.11.2017. Therefore, the present complaint is filed against this unfair repudiation and deficiency in service as exhibited by the opposite party.

4). The opposite party filed their written version submitting that there was a delay of 14 days from the date of accident in intimating them and this is a violation of policy condition. They further contend that as per the Survey Report and physical inspection, the damage to the engine was consequential in nature and does not fall under the purview of the insurance contract. Hence, they state that the repudiation is justified and seek dismissal of the present complaint.

5). Before the District Commission, the complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Mr.Shaik Ismail Basha, Senior Executive of opposite party filed proof affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 & B2.

The District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,36,000/- towards repairing charges for the damage caused to the car with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.12.2017 till realisation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

6). Aggrieved by the above said order, the appellant/opposite party filed this appeal with the following grounds:

 The Forum/Commission below failed to appreciate the specific defence of the appellant/opposite party that the engine might have been in running condition immediately after the accident;

 The District Commission failed to consider Sec(1)2(a) of the policy terms and conditions;

 The District Commission failed to appreciate the specific defence that it is the duty of the insured to intimate the Insurance Company about the accident immediately;

 The District Commission failed to consider the terms and conditions of the policy and that the report of the surveyor could not be discharged unless the contrary was proved.

7). The fact th