ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 20.09.2018 passed in C.C.No.276/2016 by District Commission, Sagar)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

BRANCH OFFICE-ABOVE PRADEEP CAFE,

GUJRATI BAZAR, SAGAR (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

DAMODAR SONI, S/O LATE RAMPRAKASH SONI, R/O BARIAGHAT WARD, SAGAR (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Pankaj Waghmode, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed On 18.03.2026)

Per Say Justice SunitaYadav, President:

This is an appeal by the opposite party/appellant-The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) against the order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.276/2016 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) has been allowed.

2. In short, facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that complainant’s Mahindra Xylo Jeep bearing registration number MP-15 BA- 828 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 29.12.2015 to 28.122016. During the insurance cover, on 22.05.2016, when the subject vehicle was parked, fumes came out from the vehicle and engine caught fire. The fire was extinguished with the help of neighbourers. The vehicle damaged to the extent of Rs.84,000/- of which intimation was given to the insurance company and written report was lodged with the police station-Motinagar. Surveyor Sandeep Saxena appointed by the opposite party-insurance company took photographs and asked to get the vehicle repaired. The complainant incurred Rs.95,000/- to get the vehicle repaired at M. D. Automotive, Bhagwanganj. It is alleged by the complainant that against the claim for Rs.95,000/- filed with the insurance company, the insurance company allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.19,700/- only. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The opposite party-insurance company in their reply before the District Commission admitted the fact of insurance of the vehicle. It is submitted by the insurance company that the insurance company settledthe claim as per policy terms and conditions. The complainant informed the incidentoccured on 22.05.2016 on 24.05.2016. As per assessment made by SurveyorSandeep Saxena and as per policy terms and conditions, the complainant was informed by registered post regarding compensation assessment to the extent of Rs.10,325/- but the complainant did not appear to get the amount. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. It is submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint on false grounds. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-insurance company to pay Rs.1,00,367/- towards damages caused to the vehicle to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deciding the claim i.e. 30.10.2016 till payment within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.15,000/- towards mental sufferings with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded. Hence, this appeal by the insurance company.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party-insurance company argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principle of law. He argued that the District Commission has committed material irregularity in not considering the documentary evidence available on record and surveyor’s report. It is further argu