M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 604/2023 Santosh Choudhary S/o Motiram Choudhary Age 41 years R/o 352, Village Barlai Jageer, Tahasil Sanver District Indore (M.P.) – 452 001 ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Bajaj Finserv, 3^rd floor, Survey 208/1-B, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411 014.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Branch Office – Ground floor, Surya Bhawan, 995, Sudama Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452 009

3. Kasliwal Hyundai A.B. Road, Dewas Naka, Indore (M.P.) – 452 001 ….. Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI PANKAJ WAGHMODE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

SHRI RAVINDRA TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2.

NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.

O R D E R ( 25.07.2025 )

Per se – Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 29.3.2023, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.2, Indore (for short ‘District ‘Commission’), in complaint case No. 767/2017, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by him.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case, as narrated by the complainant, are that the complainant’s car ‘Grand I-10’ bearing registration No.MP-09 CN-6478 was insured with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), for the period from 1.11.2015 to 31.10.2016. During currency of the policy, in January, 2016, the said vehicle met with an accident. Thereafter, the vehicle was given for repairs to respondent No.3-Kasliwal Hyundai, under intimation to the Insurance Company. About 5 months the Insurance Company did not give permission to repair the vehicle. The complainant repaired the vehicle for which incurred expense of Rs.1,50,000/-. However, the claim was repudiated on 22.11.2016 without assigning any reason. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, the complainant approached the District Commission by filing the complaint, seeking relief.

3. The opposite parties/Insurance Company resisted the complaint and in their reply before the District Commission submitted that the they have appointed a Surveyor, who assessed pre-repair liability as Rs.21,160/- in terms of terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant was to repair the vehicle and was to cooperate for final assessment of the loss but he didn’t do so and not cooperated with the Insurance Company. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The respondent No.3 also resisted the complaint and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence of the parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.21,160/-, to complainant, as assessed by the Surveyor, with interest @ 6% per annum from 6.11.2017, till payment. Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for economic loss and mental agony with Rs.2000/- as costs.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. The District Commission has failed to consider the documents and evidence of the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order be modified and the relief claimed by the complainant be granted in his favour.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the impugned order is in accordance with the evidence and settled principle of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company from 1.11.2015 to 31.10.2016. The documents o