JUDGEMENT

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT

This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act

2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 10/01/2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “District Commission” for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2021/5, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties / the appellant herein and respondent Nos.2 to 4 was allowed and the appellant herein/ opposite party No.2 insurance company was directed to pay Rs.3,18,565/-, respondent No.2/ opposite party No.1 was directed to pay Rs.84,762/- to the complainant/ respondent No.1. The opposite party No.1/ appellant herein and opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 herein were also directed to pay total compensation for mental agony Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (i.e. both amount will be paid in equal share of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.1,500/- by each of them). The above entire amount was directed to be paid within 45 days, failing which the entire amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of order till realization. The opposite party No.4 & 5/ respondent Nos.3 & 4 were left to bear their own cost. Feeling aggrieved the opposite party No.2 insurance company has preferred this appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, necessary for its disposal, are that undisputedly the complainant / respondent No.1 is the registered owner of Ford EcoSport car bearing registration No.CG-12-AN-7667, which was got insured from the appellant/ opposite party No.2 with add- on cover for the period between 17.05.2020 to 16.05.2021. The said vehicle was handed over on 17.06.2020 to the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.1 for repairing and the respondent No.4 Simon Ford has admitted that he gave estimate of repairing of the insured vehicle and received

Rs.1,35,000/- as advance.

3. As per case of the complainant / respondent No.1 before the District Commission on 16.06.2020 rainwater accumulated in the road due to heavy rain and while he was going towards his home water entered into engine of his vehicle, on the way it stopped and dash with divider of the road. The vehicle was brought to the authorized service center of the vehicle opposite party No.1/ respondent No.2 herein on 17.06.2020 and on the same day intimation was also given to the insurance company for payment of claim. Surveyor was appointed who surveyed the vehicle but even thereafter the repair work was not started by the opposite party No.1/ respondent No.2. Time and again the complainant/ respondent No.1 made efforts for getting the vehicle repaired but nothing was done. Ultimately the complainant / respondent came to know that his vehicle is being shifted from service center of opposite party No.1/ respondent No.2 to the respondent No.4 Simon Ford Bilaspur, whose estimate of repairs of the vehicle in question was of Rs.4,38,906.40, whereas the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,45,000/-. The complainant / respondent No.1 prayed for award of IDV of the vehicle along with compensation for mental agony

Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. for total amount of Rs.8,45,000/-.

4. The opposite party No.1 / respondent No.2 herein in its written version except the admitted facts has denied all the adverse allegations leveled against it and averred that for want of approval letter from the insurance company for repairing of the vehicle in question, they were unable to start the repairing work. In the month of September 2020 the dealership was closed, hence on the instructions of the company the vehicle was shifted to Simon Ford, Bilaspur. It was further averred that on 17.06.2020 itself, when the vehicle was brought to the service center, check list was prepared and was given to the complainant / respondent No.1

and he informed that as the water has entered in the engine of the vehicle, without approval of the insuranc