STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/17/1250 (Arisen out of order dated 10/08/2017 in Complaint No.RBT/CC/16/166 passed by the District Consumer Commission Central Mumbai)

Nawazish Atharali Shaikh .......

R/at.B-01, Mangal Ashish Building Appellant/org.complainant Plot no.B-52, Sector 12 Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai Versus

1.Claims Department M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Pushpam Plaza, Ground floor

135-B, Tadiwala Road Pune 411 001

2. M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Policy Issuing Office at

570, Naigaum Cross Road Next to Royal Industrial Estate Wadala (W), Mumbai 400 031

3. M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

………Respondents/org.OPs Policy Servicing office at

5^th Floor, Chandulal J Joshi Complex Opp.Railway Station Kalyan 421 301

4. M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Regd.office at 19, Reliance Centre Walchand Hirachand Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT:

Advocate Irfan A. Shaikh for appellant.

Advocate Kalpana Trivedi for respondents FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT (Dt.30/01/2025)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Central Mumbai, in consumer complaint no.RBT/CC/16/166 dated 10/08/2017, whereby the consumer complaint came to be dismissed, the original complainant has preferred this appeal. The parties to this appeal herein after shall be called and referred to as per their status in the original complaint.

2. The complainant was the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-04-

CA-2730. He had purchased goods vehicle from the opponent and taken policy for the said vehicle for the period 12/01/2011 to 11/01/2012. On 05/07/2011, the vehicle of the complainant was proceeding from Karad towards Chiplun via the Kokan Kumbharli Ghat route. At around 10.30 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident and fell down into the valley due to the heavy rains. The driver of the vehicle went to the nearest police chowki and informed the incident and ultimately, information of the accident was given to the police. On 07/07/2011, the concerned police station visited the spot and carried out the spot panchanama. On enquiry, the concerned police station had registered the crime bearing no.14/2011 against the driver of the vehicle on 18/07/2011. The statement of the complainant was recorded. After receiving the police papers, the complainant filed the claim with the opponents on 20/07/2011. Similarly, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP on 22/07/2011 giving details of the accident. The OP wrote a letter to the complainant dated 07/10/2011 and sought clarification of delay in lodging the FIR and as to why the vehicle was not taken out from the accident spot. The said letter was replied by the complainant on 14/10/2011. Since, then the OP did not reply to the claim submitted by the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the consumer complaint, which was initially dismissed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission.

3. The complainant preferred an appeal against the said order, which was allowed and the complaint was referred to the Ld.District Consumer Commission again for retrial. The Ld.District Consumer Commission again considered the evidence on record and dismissed the consumer complaint, against which the present appeal is preferred.

4. It is contended that the Ld.District Consumer Commission has not considered the police papers in proper perspective. Similarly, it was the duty of the OP to appoint a surveyor to verify the allegations of the accident as well as to assess the loss or damage caused to the vehicle. It is contended that the OP had appointed a surveyor, who visited the spot but could not assess the damage as the vehicle was in the valley deep 400 ft. It is contended that there was total damage of the vehicle but the said fact was not verified by the surveyor of OP no.1. It is contended that the complainant had c