AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR Date of Institution: 30/09/2023 Date of Final Hearing: 26/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 28/12/2023 APPEAL No.- FA/23/193 IN THE MATTER OF :

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Near Old Bus Stand, BILASPUR (C.G.) … Appellant Through: Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Vs.

Rajbir Singh Sikarwar, S/o. Shri Bhawar Singh Sikarwar, R/o. Amaltas Colony, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur, Tah. & Dist. BILASPUR (C.G.) – 495 557 … Respondent Through : Shri Aagney Sail, Advocate CORAM: -

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

Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Aagney Sail, Advocate for the respondent.

JUDGEMENT

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act

1986 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 08/09/2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2017/385, whereby the complaint of the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party / appellant herein, in not paying the entire amount of repairing cost of the insured vehicle against insurance claim, was allowed.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent purchased a Hyundai Creta car, bearing registration No.CG- 10-AC-1150 for which he obtained insurance cover from the opposite party / appellant for the period between 02.05.2016 to 01.05.2017 during which on 12.04.2017, the said vehicle met with an accident. Claim was preferred before the opposite party/ appellant insurance company. Surveyor Mr. R.K. Gupta was appointed, who inspected the vehicle and estimated the repairing cost at Rs.73,000/- and advised the complainant / respondent to get his vehicle repaired from the Showroom and the repairing cost whatever incurred will be paid by the insurance company. The vehicle was repaired in which total expenses of Rs.72,863/- was incurred. Submitting the bill of repairs of Rs.72,863/- claim amount was demanded from the opposite party / appellant insurance company but they transferred only Rs.33,230/- to the Bank account of the complainant/ respondent. Repeated requests for payment of balance amount of repairing bill of the vehicle in question was made but evasive replies were given and payment was not made hence complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking direction for the opposite party / appellant insurance company to pay Rs.39,633/- as the balance amount of repairing bill, compensation for financial, physical and mental agony Rs.50,000/-, cost of litigation Rs.25,000/- along with any other relief.

3. The opposite party / appellant in its written version except the admitted facts denied all the adverse allegations leveled against it and averred that estimate of repairing work of the vehicle in question was not given by the surveyor in fact it was given by the Krishna Auto. After completion of repairing work final inspection of the vehicle was done by the Surveyor Mr. R.K. Gupta, then it was found by him that the complainant/ respondent had got repaired and replaced some parts which were not damaged in the accident hence repairing cost of such items were not payable. The payable loss was assessed by the surveyor at Rs.33,230/- which was paid to the complainant/ respondent, in which no deficiency in service was committed by the opposite party / appellant insurance company, hence the complaint be dismissed.

4. Learned District Commission after considering the rival contentions of both parties held that the opposite party/ appellant insurance company has failed to prove that the copy of surveyor report and loss assessment submitted by them was not of the damages caused as a result of the accident in question but was of the repairing work or replace