Date of filing :23.03.2023 Date of order :06.01.2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 523 OF 2023 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 221 OF 2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR Dilip Vinayak Sagave, …Appellant R/o Murud, Tq. & Dist.Latur. (Adv.S.N.Janakwade)

VERSUS

1. Branch Manager, …Respondent Chola Mandal M.S.General Insurance ( Exparte)

Company Ltd., Branch Office Near Ashok Hotel Main Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist.Latur.

2. City Car Denting & Spray Painting, ..Respondent no.2 Through its Proprietor, ( Exparte)

Sayyad Khusaro Amjad, R/o Near Guru Hotel Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Ring Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist.Latur.

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

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 06/01/2026)

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, Latur (the ‘District Commission’ for short) in C.C.No.221/2018, whereby the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the appellant insured his vehicle bearing no.MH-24/AB/5777 with respondent no.1. The policy was valid from 22/10/2016 to 21/10/2017. The insured vehicle met with an accident due to the front wheel liner on 28/09/2017 at about 1.00 a.m. when that was plying from Murud to Nagpur in Loha Ghat. In the incident there were minor injuries to the driver Keraba Nipanikar but damaged to the insured vehicle around Rs.4 lakhs. The incident was reported by the appellant to respondent no.1. The representative of respondent no.1 visited the spot and inspected the vehicle and prepared the panchanama. It was told by the representatives to the appellant that, there is no need to file a police case. They get the claim form fill in by the appellant and suggested him to take the vehicle for repairs to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 not repaired the vehicle fully and therefore he refused to take the possession of the vehicle. It is alleged by the appellant that, respondent no.1 & 2 by joining the hands and in collusion not fully repaired the insured vehicle. Being aggrieved thereby he filed consumer complaint before the District Commission, in which the impugned judgment has been passed.

3. The notice of the complaint was duly received by the respondents but they preferred to remain absent before the District Commission. As such, the complaint filed by the appellant proceeded exparte against them.

4. The District Commission on evaluating the evidence before it, reached the conclusion that, the appellant failed to give the particulars of the repairs and not repairs done by respondent no.2. He has also not lodged the police complaint about the incident. As such, for the lack of satisfactory evidence on very material issue it cannot be concluded that, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

5. We heard learned Adv. S.N.Janakwade for the appellant. Though duly served respondent no.1 and 2 not gave appearance.

As such, the appeal proceeded exparte against them.

6. On perusal of the record it can be noticed that, the insured vehicle belonging to the appellant got damaged because of the front wheel liner stucked and it get toppled on curvy road suffered the damage. It is the case of the appellant before the District Commission that, the representative of respondent no.1 inspected the vehicle and suggested that there is no need to make police complaint as there is no third party property or human damage. The representative also referred the vehicle for repairs to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 prepared the estimate of the repairs to the tune of Rs.2,88,925/-. He repaired the vehicle but not fully repaired it. Therefore he refused to take the possession of the vehicle. He claimed it to be deficiency in service and filed the complaint before the District Commission. His