STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 10.09.2021 Date of Final Hearing : 02.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 First Appeal No. 115 / 2021 United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Regional Office United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Ratan Palace, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun Through its Regional Manager Sh. Naresh Talwar (Through: Sh. J.K. Jain, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS

1. Sh. Brij Mohan Jain S/o Late Sh. Shreepal Jain R/o Ward No. 9, House No. 69/81, Indra Udhyan Marg Vikasnagar, District Dehradun (Through: Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Advocate)

…..Respondent No. 1

2. Punjab National Bank Christian Hospital Branch, Herbertpur District Dehradun Through its Branch Manager …..None for Respondent No. 2 Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 31 of 2018 styled as Sh. Brij Mohan Jain vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed by the District Commission.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle Bus bearing registration No. UK16-PA-0045, which was insured comprehensively with the opposite party No. 1 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The subject vehicle met an accident on dated 19.04.2017 at about 10.30am on Vikas Nagar Tyuni Road and the result of which, the said vehicle was totally damaged. The intimation of the said occurrence was duly intimated to the opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 20.04.2017 of the complainant, thereupon the insurance company deputed Sh. Ajay Dahiya as surveyor, who has conducted the survey. After giving all the documents the complainant personally visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 many times, but the company has not given any satisfactory answer to him regarding the claim of subject vehicle. The subject vehicle was financed by the opposite party No. 2 – Punjab National Bank, who was also pressurizing the complainant for payment of the installment of the loan taken against his vehicle. Due to non-payment of the installment of the loan amount, the loan amount was also increased. The complainant was sent a notice dated 16.10.2017, but no reply was given by the opposite party No. 1, the said act amounts to the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Subsequently, the complainant has received a letter dated 22.01.2018 from the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant was surprised to see that the company almost after one year, has written to provide the estimate of the vehicle and documents, whereas the complainant has duly submitted all the papers and told the opposite party No. 1 that the vehicle is not recoverable and it is a case of total loss. Due to fault of the opposite party No. 1, the complainant is suffering mental, economical loss and also other expenses and there is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party No. 1, who has not settled the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant is the consumer under Consumer Protection Act and the cause of action has arisen from the date of accident and till date continue, therefore, the Commission be pleased to award the amount of the complainant alongwith other compensation in the head of interest, mental agony, financial etc.

3. The opposite party No. 1 has submitted its written statement alleging that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject vehicle which was insured with the answering opposite party. It is also conceded that proper information has been obtained from the complainant about the occurrence and thereupon Sh. Ajay Dahiya was deputed as Surveyor, who conducted the survey. It is also stated that as per the letter and request made by the surveyor, t