AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR Date of Institution: 03/07/2023 Date of Final Hearing: 22/11/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08/12/2023 APPEAL No.- FA/23/76 IN THE MATTER OF :

K. V. Shankar, S/o. Shri K. Ramannarao, R/o. Qtr. No.05/B, Street 14, Sector-10, Bhilai, Tah. & Dist. DURG (C.G.) … Appellant Through: Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate Vs.

National Insurance Company Limited, Through: Branch Manager, Add.: Akash Ganga Complex, Above Parthivi Electronics, Bhilai, Tah. & Dist. DURG (C.G.) … Respondent Through : Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate CORAM: -

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

Shri Manu Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate for the respondent.

JUDGEMENT

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 22/05/2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “District Commission” for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2019/826, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party / respondent herein, in not paying the amount of insurance claim, was dismissed.

2. Facts in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the complainant / appellant is the registered owner of Tata Indigo Manza car bearing registration No.CG-07-LW-4222 for which insurance cover was obtained from the opposite party / respondent insurance company for the period between 28.08.2017 to 27.08.2018 and insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.1,64,000/-. During subsistence of the insurance policy on 21.06.2018 at 10.45 pm the said vehicle was dashed by a truck from the back side and severally damaged causing total loss of the vehicle. Complaint was lodged with the P.S. Telibandha Raipur. An estimate of Rs.2,40,100/- was given by the service center without opening the vehicle and informed that after opening the vehicle, the estimate may increase.

3. The complainant / appellant gave intimation to the opposite party / respondent along with all relevant documents and demanded IDV of the vehicle as the repairing cost of the vehicle was more than the IDV but the opposite party / respondent instead of considering the claim on total loss, assessed the repairing cost of the vehicle at Rs.73,049/- and offered the said amount for payment against the insurance claim without giving any reason or document to justify the said offer, which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant / appellant issued legal notice dated 05.10.2018 demanding the IDV of the vehicle, which was replied on 24.10.2018 that they are ready to pay Rs.73,049/- but the IDV was not paid. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice complaint was filed before the District Commission praying for direction to the opposite party insurance company to pay the IDV of the vehicle Rs.1,64,000/- (One Lac Sixty Four Thousand) with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of incident 21.06.2018, compensation for mental agony Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) along with any other relief which the District Commission deems fit to award.

4. The opposite party / respondent herein in its written version except the admitted facts has denied all the adverse allegations leveled against it and averred that in the column No.5 of reply of the legal notice it was mentioned that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.73,049/- but at the place of stating the facts like that, false and cooked facts have been stated in the complaint. It was further averred that no document regarding intimation of occurrence of incident to the opposite party / respondent was provided by the complainant / appellant. It was further averred that vide letter dated 19.03.2019 the com