IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 01.11.2023 Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 605/2023 IN THE MATTER OF M/S. SAGAR AND SAGAR, THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. RAJEEV SAGAR, S/O MR. P.K. SAGAR, 18 HARGOBIND ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI–110092.

(Through: Ms. Radhika Aggarwal, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT:

OFFICE CODE-361400, SCO NO. 41–42–43, SECTOR–31, GURGAON–122001.

(Through: Mr. Vibhor, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Ms. Radhika Aggarwal, Counsel for the Appellant through VC.

Mr. Vibhor, Counsel for the Respondent through VC.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant against the Impugned Order dated 20.09.2023., passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi, titled M/s. Sagar and Sagar vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. in CC No. 260 of 2023.

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 20.09.2023, whereby it held as under:

“Arguments on admission heard. This is the case of complainant w.r.t. deficiency by the OP in repudiating the claim w.r.t. the accident of his vehicle.

The Commission has perused the record.

Apart from one sentence mentioned in the Para-3 in the complaint that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident had happened, who was driving the vehicle, whether that person was having valid Driving License at the time of driving the vehicle, who suffered injury, whether the matter was reported in Police Station or not, whether any FIR/NCR lodged got registered or not all such facts are missing.

The basic cause of action of the complainant in the complaint is w.r.t. the accident repudiating of the case claim whereas there is no trace of any fact w.r.t. the fact as to whether accident had actually happened or not. Therefore there is no disclosure of any cause of action w.r.t. details of the accident as explained herein above. Therefore present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. Therefore complaint is rejected.”

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal, submitting that the District Commission failed to consider that the Respondent had not disputed the accident of the vehicle of the Appellant, and therefore the Appellant omitted the details of the accident in question vis-à-vis location of the accident, driver details, valid driver’s license and the report at the respective police station. Further, it submitted that the Appellant bore the cost of the repair of the vehicle as there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent. It is further submitted that there was no break-in- policy and that the Respondent Insurer company is responsible for pre-inspection before the policy is entered into, therefore the Respondent cannot reject the claim. Pressing the aforesaid submissions and contentions, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed its Reply to Appeal, denying all the submissions and contentions of the Appellant, and submitted that there is no error on the part of the District Commission in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinised before passing the said order. The Respondent has further submitted that the Appellant has failed to disclose any details regarding the place of accident, details of the driver of the vehicle, details of any injury and whether an FIR was lodged or not, therefore, the Respondent was justified to repudiate the claim of the Appellant and that there is no deficiency on the part of the Respondent. Pressing the aforesaid contentions and submissions, the Respondent has pr