AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR Date of Institution: 18/02/2025 Date of Final Hearing: 06/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 06/03/2026 APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/85/2025 IN THE MATTER OF :

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Manager, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G.) – 494 001 … Opposite Party/ Appellant Through: Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate Vs.

Jagdalpur Motors, Proprietor Shri Neeraj Sharma, S/o. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Add.: N.H.-16, Pandaripani, Gidam Road, Jagdalpur, Through: General Power of Attorney Shri Ashish Shrivastava, S/o. Late Shri J.P. Shrivastava, R/o. Pandaripani, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G.) – 494 001 … Complainant/ Respondent Through: Shri Jaimesh Chawda, Advocate CORAM: -

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER PRESENT: -

Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the appellant.

Proceeded ex-parte against the respondent vide order dated 05.01.2026, However, on the date of final hearing Adv. Mr. Jaimesh Chawda was permitted to take part in the proceeding on behalf of the respondent.

O RD E R

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short), is preferred against order dated 03.01.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jagdalpur (CG) (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/34/2022 whereby the complaint was partly allowed directing the opposite party / appellant herein to pay within one month to the complainant/ respondent Rs.6,84,721/- (Rupees Six Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One) towards actual repairing expenses of the insured vehicle with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 13.01.2021 till payment. In case of failure to pay the said amount within one month, the interest was directed to be paid @

9% p.a. Apart from that to pay within one-month Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent had insured a Tata Safari vehicle, chassis number MAT617001DNE05308, with the opposite party/ appellant under policy number 1905053113P103676798, which was valid and effective from 13.09.2013 to 12.09.2014. The said vehicle was a demo vehicle. The said vehicle met with an accident on 20.04.2014, and upon the complainant/ respondent's written intimation to the opposite party/ appellant on 23.04.2014, insurance claim was registered. After the opposite party/ appellant's surveyor came and inspected the vehicle, the complainant/ respondent was asked for an estimate of repairs, upon which an estimate of Rs.4,65,458/- (four lakh sixty-five thousand four hundred fifty-eight rupees) dated 21.04.2024 was provided by the complainant / respondent to the opposite party/ appellant. After the vehicle was dismantled, when the possibility of repair expenses increasing during the repair of the damaged vehicle, a supplementary estimate of Rs.2,03,654/- (two lakh three thousand six hundred fifty four rupees) was given to the opposite party/ appellant on 15.12.2015. After the repair of the said damaged vehicle, a total cost of Rs.6,84,721/- (six lakh eighty four thousand seven hundred twenty one rupees) was incurred.

3. On being informed of this by the complainant/ respondent to the opposite party/ appellant, on 24.06.2016, their surveyor gave an assessment report of Rs.4,20,656/- (four lakh twenty thousand six hundred fifty six rupees) and the same amount was approved. But on 04.05.2018, the opposite party/ appellant sent a letter to the complainant/ respondent informing that the vehicle had not been repaired and returned until one and a half years after the accident, therefore the accident claim of the vehicle cannot be paid. The complainant/ respondent also informed the opposite party/ appellant