STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 17.06.2019 Date of Final Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2025 SC/5/A/215/2019 Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Registered Office – 15^th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Mumbai and O.P. No. 2 and 3 through its Authorised Signatory, Unit No. 810-816

8^th Floor, World Trade Tower, Plot No. C-001, Sector-16 Noida – 201301 (U.P.)

(Through: Sh. Suresh Gautam, Advocate)

…… Appellant Versus Sh. Ghanshyam Agarwal S/o late Kalicharan Agarwal R/o Ashutosh Nagar, Rishikesh, District Dehradun Second address – Shyam Bricks, Dhalwala Rishikesh, District Dehradun through his Attorney Holder Sh. Sachin Agarwal S/o Sh. Haricharan Agarwal R/o 49, Nehru Marg, Ashutosh Nagar Rishikesh, District Dehradun (Through: Sh. Amit Agarwal, Advocate)

…… Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 308 of 2014, styled as Sh. Ghanshyam Agarwal Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the appellant / opposite parties to pay Rs. 16,20,909/- to the respondent / complainant towards claim amount; Rs. 20,000/- towards parking charges; Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days’, failing which the respondent / complainant was further held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid sum from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the respondent / complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UK09-A-1345, which was insured with the appellant – insurance company vide policy No. 010075458400 for the period from 23.03.2013 to 22.03.2014 at an IDV of Rs. 16,20,909/-. It was alleged in the consumer complaint that the insured vehicle met with an accident on dated 22.02.2014 at Sardhana Chowk, Meerut and the vehicle was totally damaged. The vehicle was towed to SJS Cars Pvt. Ltd., Meerut, where its repair cost was assessed to the tune of Rs. 22,07,705/-. The information about the accident was immediately given to the insurance company. The insurance company deputed its surveyor, who inspected the insured vehicle in the garage on 03.03.2014 and prepared the report without any basis, whereby the surveyor assessed the amount of Rs. 7,24,249/- as payable to the complainant. The surveyor – Sh. Arvind Kumar vide his letter dated 16.05.2014 informed the complainant that the dealership of the repairer has been cancelled, therefore, the vehicle be shifted to another dealer. Thereafter, the complainant towed the vehicle to SLO Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun. The officials of the insurance company also made survey of the vehicle in the garage and orally informed the complainant that the repairing company will inform the insurance company about the approximate repair expenses of the vehicle. Thereupon, the said repairing company prepared the estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs. 23,59,500/-. The insurance company made an offer to the complainant for settlement of claim for Rs. 12,00,000/-, but the said offer was not accepted by the complainant. Thereafter, the insurance company again deputed surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and submitted the report like the report submitted by the earlier surveyor. As per the said survey report, when the correspondence was made with Volkswagen Company, the said company informed that the manner in which the vehicle is told to be repaired, the manufacturing company would not be liable in running, safety and technical defect in the vehicle. The complainant several times re