Date of filing :13.04.2018 Date of order :06.01.2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 161 OF 2018 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 569 OF 2016 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD Raosaheb Mohanrao Teke, …Appellant R/o At Post Shivpur, Tq.Gangapur, (Adv.S.T.Agrawal)

Dist.Aurangabad.

VERSUS

1. Future Generally India Insurance Co.Ltd. ..Respondent No.1

2^nd floor, Pagariya Tower, (Adv.R.H.Dahat )

Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, Adalat Road, Aurangabad 431 003.

Through its Branch Manager.

2. Ratnaprabha Motors, ..Respondent No.2 E32, Opp.Wokhart Research Centre, (Adv.D.T.Kamble)

MIDC Industrial Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad 431 003.

Through its Branch Manager.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member

J U D G M E N T

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad (the ‘District Commission’ for short) in C.C.No.569/2016, whereby the District Commission allowed the complaint filed by the appellant to the extent of granting sum of Rs. 35,750/- towards the insurance claim along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of repudiation of insurance claim till the realisation and Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment along with Rs.2,000/- as the cost of the proceedings. 2. The appellant has insured his ‘Scorpio’ vehicle bearing No. MH-20-CS-7080 for the period of 06.03.2014 to 05.03.2015. The insured vehicle was stolen on 04.03.2015. The appellant lodged the FIR regarding the theft of it. During the investigation police recovered the stolen vehicle. The appellant filed the Miscellaneous Application before the learned 3^rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paithan for the return of the vehicle. The same was ordered to be given in the possession of the appellant. When he received that vehicle, it was noticed by him that there were mulitiple damages to it. As such, he approached respondent no.2 and obtained the estimated cost of repairs, which turns out to be Rs.3,68,753/-. Thereafter, he lodged the insurance claim with respondent no.1, which appointed Sayyad Muzhamil as a surveyor but ultimately respondent no.2 repudiated the insurance claim of the appellant on the ground that, despite of the repeated requests by it to the appellant, he failed to submit the necessary particulars and the documents. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed above mentioned Consumer Complaint before the District Commission, in which the impugned judgment has been passed.

3. The ld. District Commission on evaluating the evidence before it and after hearing the learned Counsels of both sides held that there has been deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.1. Therefore, the District Commission directed respondent no.1 to pay to the appellant sum of Rs.35,750/- towards the insurance claim, on the basis of the survey report appointed by respondent no.1.

4. We heard both ld. Adv.S.T.Agrawal for the appellant and Adv. R.H.Dahat for respondent no.1. Despite of multiple opportunities given by this Commission to respondent no.2, it did not argue the matter. As such, we are unable to hear respondent no.2.

5. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that, it is admitted to both sides that, the insured vehicle was stolen. During the police investigation it was recoved and handed over to the appellant in a damaged condition. It is also not disputed that, respondent no.2 issued the estimate of Rs.3,68,753/- for repairing the vehicle. The surveyor Sayyad Muzhamil in his survey report assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,750/-. The only point of dispute is that according to the appellant the surveyor has not assessed the loss properly and excluded so many sums, as indicated in the estimate given by respondent no.2 without giving any valid reason for it. The District Commission erroneously relied on it. According to respondent n