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

REVISION PETITION NO. 56/2023 United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Branch Office Jhansi Road Chattarpurt (M.P.) ... Petitioner VERSUS.

Vinod Kumar Jain S/o Gopichand Jain R/o Soni Mohalla Tahasil andThana Rajnagar Rajnagar District Chattarpur (M.P.). ... Respondent APPEAL NO. 910/2024 United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Through the Branch Manager Jhansi Road Thana and Tahasil Rajnagar Chattarpurt (M.P.) ... Appellant VERSUS.

Vinod Kumar Jain S/o Gopichand Jain R/o Soni Mohalla Rajnagar District Chattarpur (M.P.). ... Respondents BEFORE;

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

SHRI MAHAVIR BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT-UNITED INIDA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

NONE FOR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT- VINOD KUMAR JAIN.

O R D E R

( 13.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This order will govern disposal of above mentioned revision petition No. 56/2023 and appeal No.910/2024, filed by opposite party-United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’).

2. The Insurance Company has preferred the said revision petition No.56/2023, against an interim order dated 14.7.2023, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chattarpur (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 442/2022, whereby the District Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the Insurance Company, since the Insurance Company had not filed its written statement within the statutory period. However, during pendency of the said revision petition, the District Commission has finally decided the complaint by order dated 29.2.2024, which has also been challenged by the Insurance Company in appeal No.

910/2024.

3. Since the complaint No.442/2022 has been disposed of finally, revision petition No. 56/2023 is rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous.

4. As mentioned above, the Insurance Company has challenged the order dated 29.2.2024 passed by the District Commission, by which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the Insurance Company is directed to pay repair expenses incurred by the complainant in repairing his accidental vehicle, i.e. Rs.3,29,699/- within a period of 30 days with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 27.7.2022 till payment, with compensation and costs Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the District Commission has not only committed error in not allowing the Insurance Company to file written statement in the matter but has also committed error in allowing the complaint by entirely relying on the submissions of the complainant. The complainant himself in his pleadings has stated that after occurrence of accident Surveyor was appointed in the matter, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,99,000/-. The District Commission ought to have passed the impugned order after considering the Surveyor’s assessment. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay repair expenses, as per bills produced by the complainant. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be modified accordingly.

7. The complainant had approached the District Commission on the ground that when his vehicle bearing registration No. MP 16 C-7994, met with an accident on 24.11.2020, the Insurance Company was duly intimated and Surveyor was appointed in the matter. It is alleged that the Insurance Company closed claim file of the complainant vide letter dated 1.3.2021, before obtaining final survey report in the matter. He, therefore, alleged deficiency in service against the Insurance Company and prayed that he be granted repair expenses borne by him in repairing his accidental vehicle.

8. Admittedly, the District Commission closed the right of Insurance