ORDER

1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 29.08.2018, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 501 of 2017, wherein the Appeal filed by the OP (Respondent herein) was allowed and set aside the Order dated 12.04.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmadnagar (“District Forum”) in CC No. 178 of 2015.

2.      There was 73 days delay in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application of Condonation of delay bearing no. IA/13331/2019, the delay is condoned.

3.      For ease of reference, the parties are referred to as stated in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Shri Ishwar Ashok Bora is referred to as the Complainant. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. is referred to as the Opposite Party (OP for short).

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant who owned a Volkswagen Vento Tradeline Diesel Car registration No. MH-14DX-1188, obtained insurance from the OP Insurance Co. under a Zero-Depreciation policy for a premium of Rs.28,572/- on 22.03.2014. Following an accident in September 2014, the OP settled a claim of Rs. 55,886/- without objection. However, on 08.10.2014, the car was involved in a major accident caused due to a large pothole, resulting in the vehicle coming to a halt. Subsequently, the car was towed to the VW Showroom (Dhoot Motors Aurangabad), and the OP conducted an initial survey in the absence of the Complainant. The showroom then informed the Complainant about the visit of the OP's Licensed Surveyor, who estimated repair costs at Rs.51,927/-. After repairs by the authorized showroom, engine noise was detected, prompting the technician to advise further diagnosis. This was conveyed to the OP. Despite this, the OP rejected the Complainant's claim, asserting in a letter dated 09.12.2014, that no accidental external impact on the engine was observed, and hence, the company would not indemnify the loss or damage. He repeatedly communicated the exact damage situation to the OP through various letters dated 22.12.2014, 02.01.2015 and 12.03.2015. But, the claims were repudiated on false grounds, as stated in letters dated 29.12.2014, 06.01.2015, and 14.04.2015, respectively. Dissatisfied with the denial of the legitimate insurance claim and citing deficiencies in service by the OP, he filed CC No. 178/2015 before the District Forum seeking payment of the repair bill for Rs.51,927/- incurred at the authorized showroom on 10.10.2014, direction to the authorized showroom for further repairs estimated to be for Rs.5,68,202.62, compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs.

5.      In reply, the Opposite Party (OP) admitted that the vehicle owned by the Complainant was insured from 22.3.2014 to 21.3.2015. However, the OP denied that the vehicle collided with a ditch on the road, contending that the damage to the vehicle was not caused by an accident but due to another reason. The insurance claim was refused for valid reasons. According to the OP, upon inspection by the Surveyor, it was determined that the vehicle was not damaged in an accident. The Surveyor observed that the foundation of the engine was dislocated, with no signs of external impact. The vehicle had not come into contact with any external object, leading to the conclusion that the damage was not caused by an accident. As such, the OP refused the claim based on reasonable grounds. The OP asserted that it did not violate any established deficiency in the services provided. The OP urged the dismissal of the Complaint filed by the Complainant.

6.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 12.04.2017, allowed the complaint with the following Order:

“O R D E R

7.      Aggrieved by the Order of the Distric