State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Balvir Singh on 28 April, 2026
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.742 of 2023
Date of Institution : 29.11.2023
Date of Reserve : 21.04.2026
Date of Decision : 28.04.2026
The New India Assurance Company Limited, situated at Nangal
Chownk, Ropar through Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector
17-A, Chandigarh, through its duly Authorized Officer.
.....Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Balvir Singh, aged 44 years, son of Shri Kuldeep Singh, resident of
Village Shahpur, Tehsil Shri Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
15.09.2023 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Ropar.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Vinod K. Kanwal, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Ishmeet Singh, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party NIAC Ltd. against the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar (in short First Appeal No 742 of 2023 2 'District Commission'), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act') was partly allowed and opposite party-Insurance Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- more along with interest @9% per annum within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
2. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle -Make Prima LX-3123-Truck having Regn. No.PB-12-Y-8388. On 23.12.2019, the complainant got insured his vehicle with the opposite party through Smt. Jagjit Kumar Dewan, authorized agent of the opposite party and paid the premium of Rs.58,973/- The policy was valid for the period 23.12.2019 to 22.12.2020. In January, 2020, the vehicle met with an accident. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the report regarding accident and also gave information to the opposite party. After receiving the information, the official of the opposite party visited the spot and inspected the place of accident as well as vehicle. The complainant was given instructions to get the vehicle repaired and they will make whole of the damages. The complainant got the vehicle repaired from Deepak Motors as well as Bharaj Truck and First Appeal No 742 of 2023 3 Bus builder Repair of Kiratpur Sahib by spending a sum of Rs.14,55,940/-. All the bills were submitted to the opposite party but they make the payment of approximately Rs.6,50,000/- and assured to make the remaining payment shortly. The complainant visited time and again to get the remaining amount of claim but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. This act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which compelled the complainant to approach the District Commission seeking following reliefs:
i) to make the remaining payment of Rs.8,06,000/- of damages of the vehicle as per the bill-cum-receipt;
ii) to pay Rs.1 lakh as damages caused to the complainant mentally, physically as well as financially; and
iii) to pay Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed its reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is submitted that after survey, the surveyor submitted his report before opposite party. The opposite party after going through the report pass the claim of Rs.6,69,404.13. During the scrutiny of the claim papers, it was noticed that the vehicle was loaded with iron scrap weighing 24950 kg. having Gross Vehicle Weight of vehicle as 35,000 kg and unladen weight as per RC of the vehicle was 12350 kg. thereby carrying permitted capacity as 22650 kg. and was over loaded with 2300 kg. which is 6.57% of the gross vehicle weight. A clarification was also sought from insured First Appeal No 742 of 2023 4 through letter dated 13.08.2020 and 07.09.2020 regarding over loading. Thereafter, the complainant/insured rectified the unladen weight of vehicle as 11045 kg. which shows that the overloaded weight is only 995 kg which is 2.84%. As per Head Office Circular, the claim of vehicle overloaded in excess of 5% is to repudiated. But the insurance company recommended the claim of Rs.6,69,404.13. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party because the amount of claim approved has been credited in the account of the complainant through NEFT/RTGS on 24.02.2021. On merits, the opposite party reiterated the submission as mentioned in the preliminary objections. Rest all the averments, as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the contentions of the parties, the complaint was partly allowed, vide impugned order dated 15.09.2023.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 and to allow the appeal.
6. We have heard the contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record as well as written arguments filed by the parties. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
First Appeal No 742 of 2023 5
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party filed the written arguments as well as orally submitted that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the facts of the case properly and without giving any reasoning has arbitrarily granted half of the relief to the respondent/complainant with no explanation. He further submitted that the stand taken by the appellant/ opposite party before the District Commission was not refuted by the respondent/complainant as the respondent/complainant has received the compensation as per the report of the surveyor without any prejudice and after that he filed the present complaint on baseless grounds and the District Commission has not considered these facts in a true sense. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party in support of their contentions has also relied upon the following authorities:
i) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai, Chandan Lal 2004(8) SCC 644
ii) Suraj Mal Ram Nivas Oil Mills, 2010(10) SCC 567;
iii) Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2008) CPJ 93 (NC)
iv) M/s Jain Kirana Stores vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. In Appeal No.1742 of 2017 (NC)
v) UPSRTC Versus Islamuddin 2009(3) SCC 473
vi) United India Insurance Company Versus Bindu, 2009(3) SCC 705 First Appeal No 742 of 2023 6
vii) Fakirappa Versus Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, 2004(2) PLR 210.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has pleaded that the appellant/opposite party has given the inadequate compensation at the belated stage, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the claim of the insurer be dealt promptly and speedily. He further pleaded that though the report of the surveyor is only evidence on the file qua the damage to the vehicle but the surveyor report is not binding if the same does not cover the whole damage of the vehicle. In support of the contention on the point, the respondent/complainant has relied upon the following authorities:
i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur (2004) 2 SCC 370;
ii) SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anju Jain (2021) 6 SCC 134;
iii) Sikka Papers Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(SC)
iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar (2020) 4 SCC 111.
v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Aggarwal (2022) SCC Online SC 345.
9. He further pleaded that the District Commission has rightly granted the compensation of Rs.3,15,000/-, half of the remaining amount assessing the actual loss to the vehicle and not as per the surveyor's report. He admitted that half of the amount was paid to First Appeal No 742 of 2023 7 the respondent/complainant but no reasoning was given why the remaining amount withheld by the appellant/opposite party. He further refers to the surveyor's report and pleaded that surveyor's report does not cover whole of the damage to the vehicle and is incomplete and that report cannot be accepted. On this point, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party has relied upon the following authorities:
i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Aggarwal (2023) 2 SCC 488
ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manubhai DharmasinhbhaiGajera, (2008) 10 SCC 404
iii) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dinesh Kumar (2022) SCC Online SC 1109.
iv) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Bhagat (2021) SCC Online SC 726.
10. Admittedly, the vehicle of the respondent/complainant was insured with the appellant/opposite party - company against the policy No.36080331190100002287 for the period 23.12.2019 to 22.12.2020. It is also not disputed that the same vehicle met with an accident and it was duly informed to the appellant/opposite party
- Company, who appointed the surveyor. The surveyor inspected the damage of the vehicle and submitted his report, wherein the surveyor gave the assessment to the tune of Rs.6,69,404.13p. On the contrary, the respondent/complainant submitted the repair bill of Deepak Motors, authorized agent of Tata Motors to the tune of Rs.13,00,646/-. After receiving the surveyor's report, the appellant/ First Appeal No 742 of 2023 8 opposite party-Company paid a sum of Rs.6,69,404.13p agitated thereby that the damages actually occurred has been compensated by the Insurance Company. The perusal of the impugned order concluding para as under:
"......The complainant submitted Tax invoice of Deepak Motors, an Authorised Service Station of TATA Motors for Rs.13,00,946/- for the repairs of the said vehicle and demanded the difference of that amount and that amount paid. Striking a balance between both the parties and in the interest of justice it is deemed appropriate to award half of the difference of the amount claimed by the complainant and the amount already paid by the OP-Insurance Company. The complainant claimed Rs.13,00,946/-, whereas the OP-
Insurance Company has already paid a sum of Rs.6,69,404.13P, Thus, the half of difference of both these amounts comes to approximately Rs.3,15,000/-. It is held that the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,15,000/- more over and above the amount already paid to him.
8. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is partly allowed and OP-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,15,000/- more to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order till date of actual payment. The OP-Insurance Company is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment First Appeal No 742 of 2023 9 and mental tension caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation."
11. This order of the District Commission reveals that no reasoning or explanation has been given by the District Commission, if they relied upon the surveyor's report or they rejected the same. However, they are merely writing 'in the interest of justice' granted Rs.3,15,000/-, which is totally unacceptable. The District Commission has dealt with the case in a cursory and casual manner without mentioning any reasoning to reach at that conclusion. There is no appreciation of any evidence or the report of the surveyor or the details of the damaged bill, filed by the respondent/complainant and has arbitrarily given relief, which is totally flimsically.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party is allowed and judgment of the District Commission is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Commission with a direction to decide the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after duly considering the evidence available on record. The District Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the complaint expeditiously.
13. The appellant/opposite party had deposited a sum of Rs.1,66,981/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This sum, along with interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the First Appeal No 742 of 2023 10 Registry to the appellant/opposite party after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copies of the order to them, in accordance with law.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court case.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER April 28th ,2026 parmod