H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Appeal No. FA/208/2024 Date of Presentation : 16.09.2024 Order Reserved on : 09.09.2025 Date of Order : 14.10.2025 _________

Shri Baljeet son of late Shri Charanjeet, R/O SL-2/175, BBMB Colony, Slapper, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi,HP.

…Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance Company, SCO 145-146, Sector-9 C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kashyap Kuteer, Ist Floor, Panthaghati, Shimla, HP-171009.

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office 126/12, Near Namdhari Gurudwara, Ist Floor, Ram Nagar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP through its Branch Manager.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties ____

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant : Mr. Pranav Kaushal Advocate and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocate.

For the Respondents:Mr.Sachin Sunail, Advocate vice Mr. Chandan Goel, Advocate.

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

Per Ms. Yogita Dutta, Member O R D E R Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

19.06.2024 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Mandi in Consumer Complaint No.21/2023 titled Sh. Baljeet Versus Reliance General Insurance Co.

Ltd.,& Ors. whereby the complaint was dismissed.

Brief facts of Case:-

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of Hyundai I20 Sportz car bearing registration No.HP-31B-6746, which was insured with opposite party No.1 w.e.f. 26.09.2017 to 25.09.2018. On 07.09.2018 at about 10.30 PM the vehicle met with an accident at village Chakkli, P.O. Slapper, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, HP and it was damaged and declared total loss. The accident was reported to the Police Post, Slapper. The complainant took the vehicle to the authorized dealer. The authorized dealer charged Rs.150/- per day rent from the complainant as garage rent. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs.6,12,168/- and estimate qua the repair of vehicle was Rs.4,14,554/- and the same submitted to th e surveyor and loss assessor whose services were hired by the opposite parties. The authorized dealer declared the vehicle to be total loss and in order to settle the claim the complainant submitted all the documents to the opposite parties, but his claim was not settled till date. Hence, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant also stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the limitation period was extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

3. The opposite parties contested the complaint, however, reply has been filed only by opposite party No.3, wherein, preliminary objections as to maintainability, pre- mature nature of complaint, cause of action, want of requisite documents, non-joinder of necessary party, suppression of material facts by the complainant, complex nature of complaint which could be decided by a Civil Court and limitation were raised. On merits, it is not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties and it had met with an accident. It is further submitted that the surveyor and loss assessor assessed the indemni ty of damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,16,726/- on repair basis subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but the requisite documents such as SFSL, report in respect of driver/occupant, final police report, KYC documents, TP affidavit etc. were not supplied by the complainant. So, the claim of complainant could not be settled. The file was closed for want of completion of required documents. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4. The parties adduced evidence in support of their pleadings.

5. After