H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

First Appeal No.: SC/2/FA/148/2025 Date of Presentation: 26.05.2025 Order reserved on: 09.12.2025 Date of Decision: 15.12.2025 ………………………………………………………………………….

1. Smt. Rita Kumari W/o late Sh. Sudesh Kotvi.

2. Ms. Sejal (Minor), daughter of late Sh. Sudesh Kotvi.

3. Master Varjit (Minor) S/o late Sh. Sudesh Kotvi. Through Mother-cum-First Friend Smt. Rita Kumari.

4. Smt. Sarla wife of Sh. Devi Saran.

All R/o Village Thana, P.O. Mandal, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P.

…..Appellants/Complainants.

Versus M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., Hotel Himland East, Shimla, H.P. Through its Divisional Manager.

….Respondent/Opposite Party.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms. Yogita Dutta, Member Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellants: Mr. Kumar Kaustubh, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Suraj Sharma, Advocate, vice Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.

O R D E R:

Instant appeal is arising from order dated

10.03.2025 passed by learned District Commission, Shimla in

1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Consumer Complaint No.177/2021, whereby the complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Sudesh Kotvi (husband, father and son respectively of the complainants) was owner of vehicle i.e. Maruti Swift car bearing registration No.HP-10B-2570 which was insured with the opposite party/insurance company for a sum of Rs.3,52,324/- and policy was effective w.e.f. 19.3.2021 to 18.3.2022. In addition to insurance of the car, personal insurance cover was also provided to the owner-cum- driver of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lacs and premium was duly paid to the insurance Company. On 26.04.2021, the vehicle, in question, met with an accident at Village Thana and suffered total loss. At the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by owner- cum-driver Sh. Sudesh Kotvi and he died in the said accident. Information of accident was given to the insurance company. Insurance company appointed a surveyor who visited the spot and asked the complainants to submit the claim form along with certain other documents to process the claim. Despite submitting all the requisite documents, the claim of the complainants was not settled by the insurance company. The said acts on the part of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3. In reply, the opposite party/insurance company has stated that after receiving the information of accident, a surveyor was appointed who visited the spot and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,46,324/- on net of salvage basis, but the complainants failed to supply the required documents, despite many reminders, as such, the claim of the complainants could not be settled and is still pending. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. In rejoinder, the complainants have reiterated the contents of complaint and refuted the allegations as alleged by the opposite party/Insurance company in its reply.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, appellants/complainants have filed the present appeal before this Commission.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

9. Learned counsel of the appellants/ complainants has submitted that deceased life assured Sh. Sudesh Kotvi was owner of the vehicle in question which was insured with the respondent/insurance company. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 26.4.2021 at J