H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA First Appeal No.: 263/2019 Date of Presentation: 30.07.2019 Order Reserved on :16.09.2023 Date of Order :06.10.2023 ___

Krishan Kumar Kachoria S/o Sh. Fateh Singh, R/o House No.40/S-5, BBMB Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

…… Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional office, Hospital Road, Mandi, H.P. through its Divisional Manager

2. The Manager, Dev Bhoomi Car Pvt. Ltd.(Dev Bhoomi Hyundai) NH-

21, Gutkar, Mandi, H.P ….Respondents/opposite Parties.

3. Chief Executive Officer, The New India Assurance, Co. Ltd. Building No.87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai-400001.

….Proforma Respondent/opposite Party No.3.

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Mr.R.K.Verma, Member Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the Appellant: Mr.Varun Rana, Advocate.

For the Respondents No.1&3:Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.2: Ms.Rajni Advocate, vice Mr. Hitender Thakur, Advocate.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

20.05.2019 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission,

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Mandi, in Consumer Complaint No.169/2017, titled Krishan Kumar Brief facts of Case

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No.HP-31C-1857 (Hyundai i10 car). The vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party No.1/Insurance company and the risk was covered from 05.06.2015 to 04.06.2016. IDV (Insured Declared Value) of th the car was Rs.5,50,000/-. On 28 April, 2016, the complainant was driving the car and going from Sunder Nagar to Nangal (Punjab). Complainant noticed leakage of engine oil from the chamber of the vehicle. Damage was caused to the chamber of the vehicle. Information regarding the incident was given to the opposite party No.2/dealer and the opposite party No.1/Insurance company. Car was repaired by the opposite party No.2/dealer, who issued bill of Rs.72,812/-. Out of the said amount, the opposite party No.1/Insurance company reimbursed only Rs.22,812/- by paying the same to the opposite party No.2/dealer. Complainant had to pay remaining repair charges of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.2/dealer. The opposite party No.1/Insurance company indulged in unfair trade practice and was deficient in rendering the service. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite party No.2/dealer was proceeded ex-

parte before learned District Commission below.

4. The complaint was opposed by the opposite party No.1/Insurance company by filing reply and did not deny the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party No.1/Insurance company and vehicle was damaged during the period of insurance policy. After receiving information regarding the incident, a Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor was deputed to inspect the damaged vehicle, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.26,000/-. The opposite party No.1/insurance company made the payment of Rs.26,000/- to the repairer, as per survey report. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

5. In rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint and refuted the objections put forth by the opposite party No.1/insurance company.

6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

7. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

9. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.HP31C-1857 (Hyundai i10 car). The said vehicle was insured with