STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 12.10.2022 Date of Final Hearing: 13.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 18.04.2026 SC/5/A/213/2022 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Regional Manager Regional Office, NCR Plaza Cantt. Road, Dehradun (Through: Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate)

…… Appellant Versus Sh. Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Vijay Singh R/o Village Kundali, P.O. Seriakhal District Pauri Garhwal (Through: Sh. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, 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 24.06.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pauri Garhwal (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 27 of 2017, styled as Sh. Ved Prakash Vs. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant / opposite party (insurance company) was directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,89,230/- to the respondent / complainant towards the amount spent by him in the repair of the insured vehicle together with Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony, in all, Rs. 2,99,230/-, within a period of one month from the impugned judgment and order, failing which the respondent / complainant was also held entitled to interest @6% p.a. on the above-mentioned amount from the date of accident, i.e., 04.11.2010 till impugned judgment and order and thereafter @9% till actual 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 (Tata Sumo) bearing registration No. UK12-TA-0079, which was insured with the appellant – insurance company for the period from 13.05.2010 to 12.05.2011 at an IDV of Rs. 3,80,000/- vide policy No. 252907/31/2011/324. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, on account of technical defect, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 04.11.2010 at 2:30 p.m., while the same was going from Pokhra to Chaubattakhal at Village Kamedi, Patti Talai. After lodging the F.I.R. of the accident, claim was submitted with the insurance company. After the accident, the insured vehicle was taken to the workshop and sum of Rs. 2,89,230/- was spent in the repair of the vehicle. Inspite of repeated correspondence, the insurance company did not honour the claim and repudiated the same. The complainant through his counsel sent a legal notice dated 17.01.2017 to the insurance company, for payment of repair expenses of Rs. 2,89,230/-, but the same was not replied by the insurance company. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, consumer complaint was set in motion by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The appellant – insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that on receipt of intimation regarding accident of the insured vehicle, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Ghildiyal was appointed as spot surveyor, who submitted his report to the insurance company. Through letter dated 13.12.2010, the complainant was called upon to submit estimate of repairs, copy of F.I.R., Road Tax, Fitness etc., but he did not submit the same. Therefore, vide letter dated 30.12.2010, the claim was closed / repudiated as NO CLAIM. The consumer complaint is barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation provided under the Act. Thus, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2022 in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the insurance company has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

5. We have heard learne