STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH, KOLHAPUR Appeal No. A/2023/77 (Arisen from the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolhapur dated 17/12/2021 in CC No. 119/2019)

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd.

1146/B, E Ward, Takala Chowk, Mauni Vihar Apartment, Kolhapur Through its Legal Officer Mr. Mangesh B. Inamdar, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Wellesely Court, 3^rd Floor, Above Bavaria Motors, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Pune-411 001 …. APPELLANT Vs.

Ashok Sakharam Patil R/o Malwadi, Zenda Chowk, Shiroli Pulachi, Tal. Hatkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur ..... RESPONDENT BEFORE :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, President Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member Present : Adv. P.D. Alwekar for the Appellant Adv. Dipali Athane for the Respondent ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolhapur dated 17/12/2021 in Consumer Complaint No. 119/2019, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

Facts of the appeal

2. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent (Original Complainant) obtained insurance policy in his name from present Appellant Insurance Company [Original Opponent]. The said policy was Private Car Package Policy which was valid for the period of 13-07-2018 to 12-07-2019 covering car vehicle no. MH-09-DX-3921. The complainant alleged that on 06/08/2018 said vehicle was damaged in accident. Further, he alleges that complainant's son Vijay Patil was driver and his friends were occupants of said vehicle at the material time of the accident. He alleged that survey was conducted and there was a total loss of vehicle. That, vide letter dated 24/12/2018, this Appellant repudiated claim. The complainant alleged that repudiation is not proper. The complainant further alleged that as claim was not paid, the complainant challenged the repudiation of his claim by filing consumer complaint no. 119 of 2019 before District Commission, Kolhapur. That, this Appellant insurance company filed the reply denying the allegations of the Complainant and justifying the repudiation of said claim. That, it was pleaded by this Appellant that there is misrepresentation of facts by complainant to influence the admissibility of claim. That, this Appellant had done investigation. It is the contention of the appellant that to get claim, complainant had shown his son Vijay Patil as driver but in fact, Pratik Patil was driver, and hence, claim was properly repudiated. That, the District Forum, without appreciating the documentary evidence available on record, without giving any heed to the true intent of contracting parties, without detailed discussing qua the defenses raised and authorities cited by this appellant, by its judgment dated 17/12/2021 directed this appellant to pay Rs. 4,99,550/-with interest @ 6% from date of repudiation, Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony/costs of complaint to the respondent (original Complainant). That, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17/12/2021 in complaint No. 119 of 2019 passed by the District Forum Kolhapur, the Appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds.

Grounds of Appeal

3. That the Hon'ble Forum has referred contention of misrepresentation of facts in para no. 8 of the judgment but wrongly observed that there is no substantial evidence adduced by Appellant. That the Hon'ble Forum has wrongly relied on contents of alleged police papers only. That it should have been appreciated that complainant has falsely stated to police regarding name of driver at the time of accident. Further, it should have appreciated contentions and evidence that, there were blood marks on driver side airbag of vehicle after accident which clearly implies that driver sustained head injury, but Mr. Vijay Patil [driver as per complainant’s version] had not sustained head injuries. That, on the other hand, Mr Pratik Patil, who was on co-drive