State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager United India Ins. Com. ... vs Jagdalpur Motors on 6 March, 2026
Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of
SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 18/02/2025
Date of Final Hearing: 06/02/2026
Date of Pronouncement: 06/03/2026
APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/85/2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur,
Dist. Bastar (C.G.) - 494 001 ... Opposite Party/ Appellant
Through: Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate
Vs.
Jagdalpur Motors,
Proprietor Shri Neeraj Sharma, S/o. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma,
Add.: N.H.-16, Pandaripani, Gidam Road, Jagdalpur,
Through: General Power of Attorney Shri Ashish Shrivastava,
S/o. Late Shri J.P. Shrivastava, R/o. Pandaripani, Jagdalpur,
Dist. Bastar (C.G.) - 494 001 ... Complainant/ Respondent
Through: Shri Jaimesh Chawda, Advocate
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the appellant.
Proceeded ex-parte against the respondent vide order dated 05.01.2026,
However, on the date of final hearing Adv. Mr. Jaimesh Chawda was permitted
to take part in the proceeding on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short), is preferred against order dated 03.01.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jagdalpur (CG) (hereinafter called "District Commission" for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/34/2022 whereby the complaint was partly allowed directing the opposite party / appellant herein to pay within one month to the complainant/ respondent Rs.6,84,721/- (Rupees Six Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One) towards actual repairing expenses of the insured vehicle with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 13.01.2021 till payment. In case of failure to pay the said amount within one month, the interest was directed to be paid @ Partly allowed Page 1 of 11 Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026 9% p.a. Apart from that to pay within one-month Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent had insured a Tata Safari vehicle, chassis number MAT617001DNE05308, with the opposite party/ appellant under policy number 1905053113P103676798, which was valid and effective from 13.09.2013 to 12.09.2014. The said vehicle was a demo vehicle. The said vehicle met with an accident on 20.04.2014, and upon the complainant/ respondent's written intimation to the opposite party/ appellant on 23.04.2014, insurance claim was registered. After the opposite party/ appellant's surveyor came and inspected the vehicle, the complainant/ respondent was asked for an estimate of repairs, upon which an estimate of Rs.4,65,458/- (four lakh sixty-five thousand four hundred fifty-eight rupees) dated 21.04.2024 was provided by the complainant / respondent to the opposite party/ appellant. After the vehicle was dismantled, when the possibility of repair expenses increasing during the repair of the damaged vehicle, a supplementary estimate of Rs.2,03,654/- (two lakh three thousand six hundred fifty four rupees) was given to the opposite party/ appellant on 15.12.2015. After the repair of the said damaged vehicle, a total cost of Rs.6,84,721/- (six lakh eighty four thousand seven hundred twenty one rupees) was incurred.
3. On being informed of this by the complainant/ respondent to the opposite party/ appellant, on 24.06.2016, their surveyor gave an assessment report of Rs.4,20,656/- (four lakh twenty thousand six hundred fifty six rupees) and the same amount was approved. But on 04.05.2018, the opposite party/ appellant sent a letter to the complainant/ respondent informing that the vehicle had not been repaired and returned Partly allowed Page 2 of 11 Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026 until one and a half years after the accident, therefore the accident claim of the vehicle cannot be paid. The complainant/ respondent also informed the opposite party/ appellant in writing that the repair of the vehicle had been delayed due to the lack of mechanic. The opposite party/ appellant stated that it would pay 65% of the total compensation amount to the complainant/ respondent, to which the complainant agreed and provided written consent to this effect. However, the opposite party denied its statement and refused to pay the compensation amount and ultimately rejected the claim citing lack of policy cover due to selling the vehicle to Baljeet Kumar Sharma on 13.09.2013 by the complainant/ respondent. The complainant/ respondent sold the vehicle to Baljeet Kumar Sharma on 04.11.2016, as is clear from the attached particulars of the RC book. Hence, alleging the rejection of claim as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complaint was filed before the District Commission, seeking direction to the opposite party/ appellant for payment of the amount of repairing expenses of insured vehicle incurred by the complainant/ respondent Rs.6,84,721/- (Rupees six lakh eighty four thousand seven hundred twenty one) along with interest, compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation etc.
4. The opposite party / appellant in its written version denying the allegations levelled in the complaint contested the complaint on the ground that on the basis of Trade Certificate No. 39/2013-2014 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Jagdalpur in favour of the complainant/ respondent's establishment "M/s Jagdalpur Motors Pvt. Ltd. Jagdalpur", temporary registration No. CG-17-TC-150/A to CG-17-TC-150/R were granted to a total of 16 Tata Safari category vehicles kept for sale at the complainant/ respondent's establishment. In case one of the said vehicles was used as a demo vehicle during the sale operation, the opposite party Partly allowed Page 3 of 11 Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026 had taken out a road risk policy No. 1905053113P103676798 for accident and risk under the Motor Vehicles Act for the period from 13.09.2013 to 12.09.014. The policy was issued under contractual conditions. The opposite party/ appellant is not liable to pay compensation in the event of a breach of the contractual conditions of the policy.
5. Upon the complainant/ respondent's written intimation of the accident involving the insured vehicle on 21.04.2014. The vehicle was removed from the accident site before the complainant/ respondent informed the opposite party/ appellant, which prevented the opposite party from conducting a spot survey to verify the location of the accident and the vehicle. The complainant/ respondent did not present any document or copy of the police report to the opposite party that could prove the accident beyond doubt. Following an investigation conducted by the opposite party/ appellant it revealed that the chassis number MAT617001DNE05308, which the complainant/respondent claims to have insurance on, had no road risk policy issued by the opposite party/ appellant. The fact is that the vehicle with the said chassis number had been registered in the name of the complainant/ respondent on 13.09.2013 by the District Transport Officer, Dantewada under registration number CG-26-C-3862 and the complainant/ respondent has committed an act of fraud with the opposite party/ appellant with the intention of obtaining compensation amount unjustly.
6. The complainant prepared an estimate of Rs.4,65,458/- (Rupees four lakh sixty five thousand four hundred fifty eight) for the repair of the damaged vehicle on 21.04.2014 and presented it along with the motor claim form to the opposite party on 23.04.2014. Despite the surveyor requesting and writing to the complainant/ respondent several times, the complainant/ respondent did not dismantle the damaged vehicle and Partly allowed Page 4 of 11 Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026 hence the final survey report of the damaged vehicle could not be prepared on time. The damaged vehicle was dismantled on 05.12.2015 and an estimate of Rs.2,03,654/- (Rupees two lakh three thousand six hundred fifty four) was prepared on 15.12.2015 and submitted to the opposite party/ appellant's office on 08.03.2015. The opposite party/ appellant sent letters to the complainant/ respondent on 25.01.2016 and 24.02.2016 demanding the required documents - final bill/cash receipt, trade certificate and police report, etc. However, the complainant/ respondent did not provide the said documents to the opposite party/ appellant nor did he respond. Due to this, the opposite party/ appellant considered the complainant/ respondent's indifference in resolving the damage claim and closed the claim case on 02.03.2016 and duly informed the complainant/ respondent of the same.
7. It was further averred that opposite party, it has been stated that if the opposite party/ appellant had issued a road risk policy in favour of a demo vehicle and after the issuance of the policy, the said vehicle is sold or is registered in the transport office, then in such a situation the road risk policy issued automatically expires and becomes void. In the present case, the damaged vehicle was sold on 13.09.2013 to Baljeet Kumar Sharma and was registered by the District Transport Office, Dantewada as vehicle number CG-26-C-3862, hence the road risk policy issued does not cover the risk of the said damaged vehicle and accordingly the claim was rejected on 02.03.2016 and 04.05.2018. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
8. Learned District Commission in the impugned order observed that the damaged vehicle was registered in the name of M/s. Jagdalpur Motors Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2013 under registration No.CG-26-C-3862 which is shown, in the Vehicle Particulars Exhibit C-10, to be transferred on Partly allowed Page 5 of 11 Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026 04.11.2016 and stood registered in the name of Baljeet Kumar Sharma and in such situation on the date of accident 20.04.2014 the vehicle stood registered in the name of the Authorized Dealer. In the policy in question, Exhibit C-1, one vehicle Tata Safari as demo vehicle in the name of complainant/ respondent institution is shown to be insured under a road risk policy. Thus, on the date of accident the damaged vehicle was validly insured and covered under road risk policy in question. It was further observed that the loss assessed by the surveyor is much lesser than the actual expenditure incurred in repairing of the vehicle. As per settled law, a surveyor's report is not conclusive; it may serve as a basis for claim settlement, but it is not binding either on the insurer or the insured. With these observations, the complaint was partly allowed with the directions as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
9. Final arguments heard. Record as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsels for both the parties perused.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party Mr. P.K. Paul reiterating the averments made in the written version before the District Commission has tried to raise new objections at the appellant stage in the appeal memo and in his arguments before us and prayed that the impugned order be set aside allowing this appeal, whereas learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant also reiterating the averments made in the complaint had already submitted his written arguments, in which he has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.2059 of 2015, order dated 13.12.2019 and argued that the insurance company cannot go beyond the grounds of repudiation mentioned in the claim repudiation letter.
Partly allowed Page 6 of 11
Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of
SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026
11. As per settled principle of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (Supra) and JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.7630 of 2022, order dated 18.07.2023 the insurance company cannot go beyond the grounds taken in repudiation letter. In Saurashtra Chemical Ltd. (supra) judgement the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.23 has held as under : -
"23. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the law, as laid down in Galada [Galada Power & Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 14 SCC 161: (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 765] on Issue (2), still holds the field. It is a settled position that an insurance company cannot travel beyond the grounds mentioned in the letter of repudiation. If the insurer has not taken delay in intimation as a specific ground in letter of repudiation, they cannot do so at the stage of hearing of the consumer complaint before NCDRC."
The above ratio of the decision was regarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgement in JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in paragraph No.14 it was held that : -
14. --------. Thus, following the ratio of the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the National Commission ought not to have gone beyond the grounds of repudiation and into the nature of coverage, which according to the National Commission had effectively changed from "anywhere in India to anywhere in India" to a sales turnover policy, limiting the policy coverage of the subject-goods from the points of departure at the two locations at Silvassa. These are all terms of art applicable to the insurance trade but we do not consider it necessary to dilate on this aspect of the dispute having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (supra).
Thus, it is clear from the above that neither the insurance company can nor the consumer commission ought to go beyond the grounds of rejection.
12. In the insurance claim repudiation letter dated 14.07.2020, copy of which was brought on record by the respondent/ complainant Exhibit C- 09 and as OP (1) Exhibit-2 'C' by the appellant/ opposite party, the only ground mentioned by the insurance company is "On investigation, it has come to notice that the IV vehicle was already sold to & registered in the name of "Baljeet Kumar Sharma" Registration date: 13/09/2013 which is Partly allowed Page 7 of 11 Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026 not covered under Road Risk Policy issued. Hence, the competent authority has repudiated your claim." But in the Vehicle Particulars of the damaged vehicle, Exhibit C-10, it is clearly mentioned about the vehicle in consideration that its Registration No.CG26C3862, Registration Date: 13- Sep-2013, Owner Serial No.2 and Previous Registration No. (left blank) and under the Other State/ Transfer/ Conversion Details: Previous Owner is mentioned as Jagdalpur Motors and Transfer Date 04-Nov-2016.
13. These particulars without any shadow of doubt demonstrate that previous owner of the vehicle was Jagdalpur Motors (i.e. Owner Serial No.1) and the date of registration was 13.09.2013 and it was subsequently transferred in the name of Baljeet Kumar Sharma (i.e. Owner Serial No.2) on 04.11.2016. Thus, on the date of incident of loss 20.04.2014, the vehicle stood registered in the name of Jagdalpur Motors i.e. the respondent/ complainant, in whose name the policy in question was issued and thereby there remains no doubt that the vehicle in question was validly insured under the policy in question on the date of incident in the name of the present respondent/ complainant, and therefore, the only ground of repudiation cited by the insurer in its repudiation letter is incorrect and unjustified, as has rightly been held by the learned District Commission in the impugned order.
14. So far as quantum of compensation towards repairing expenses of the insured vehicle is concerned, learned District Commission in the impugned order has observed that there is huge difference between the actual tax invoice of repairing of insured vehicle, Exhibit C-2, of Rs.6,84,721/- (Six Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One) and the assessed amount of loss by the surveyor as per Bill Check Report dated 24.06.2016, Exhibit C-04, of Rs.4,20,656/- (Four Lacs Twenty Partly allowed Page 8 of 11 Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026 Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six) and observing that as per settled law, a surveyor's report is not conclusive; it may serve as a basis for claim settlement, but it is not binding either on the insurer or the insured surveyor report has awarded the actual tax invoice amount as compensation towards repairing expenses of the insured vehicle damaged in the accident. But, in the impugned order, there is no specific finding identifying any item that was unnecessarily, unjustifiably, or arbitrarily excluded or deducted by the surveyor. Absent cogent reasons, concrete evidence, or conclusive proof of inadequacy or arbitrariness, the report of a duly licensed surveyor under the IRDA Act cannot be disregarded or brushed aside.
15. Regarding authenticity, reliability and credibility of report of a competent and duly IRDA licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. IV (2021) CPJ 1 (SC) in paragraph Nos.32 and 38 that : -
"32. It is true that even any inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or which has been undertaken to be performed pursuant to a contract, will fall within the definition of the expression 'deficiency'. But to come within the said parameter, the appellant should be able to establish (i) either that the Surveyor did not comply with the code of conduct in respect of his duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as specified by the regulations made under the Act, in terms of Section 64UM(1A) of the Insurance Act, 1938, as it stood then; or (ii) that the insurer acted arbitrarily in rejecting the whole or a part of the Surveyor's Report in exercise of the discretion available under the Proviso to section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938."
"38. ----- Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop".
Hon'ble National Commission relying upon the above judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in its recent judgement passed in Anand Partly allowed Page 9 of 11 Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026 Pratap Singh Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited, in Second Appeal No.711 of 2025, pronounced on 03.11.2025, has held in paragraph No.10 that : -
"10. -------- whereas in our opinion the surveyor report is an important document in insurance claim related cases arising out of an accident during the validity period of the insured vehicle insurance policy and if the consumer's case is found to be true, the consumer has a legal right to receive the amount of damage assessed in the surveyor report from the insurance company and unless the surveyor report is proved to be wrong/erroneous with any reliable evidence, there is no basis for not believing it."
16. In the facts of the present case, the surveyor's assessment in his report does not indicate any inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance expected to be maintained under the law. If the respondent / complainant is disagree with or has any objection to such assessment, he should be able to establish (i) either that the Surveyor did not comply with the code of conduct in respect of his duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as specified by the regulations made under the Act, in terms of Section 64UM(1A) of the Insurance Act, 1938, as it stood then; or (ii) that the insurer acted arbitrarily in rejecting the whole or a part of the Surveyor's Report in exercise of the discretion available under the Proviso to section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938, but nothing of that sort has been done, hence we do not find any reason to deviate from the net assessment of loss done by the competent licensed surveyor as there is no basis of not believing surveyor's report brought on record as "BILL CHECK REPORT" dated 24.06.2016 as Exhibit C-04 by the respondent / complainant and as OP(01) Exhibit - 16 'C' by the appellant/ opposite party insurance company, assessing the loss of insured to be Rs.4,20,656/- (Rupees Four Lacs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six only). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order needs to be accordingly modified, partly allowing this appeal.
Partly allowed Page 10 of 11
Appeal Nos.: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of
SC/22/FA/85/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:
Jagdalpur Motors 06/03/2026
17. With the foregoing discussion, we partly allow this appeal and modify the impugned order only to the extent that towards repairing expenses of the damaged insured vehicle, at the place of Rs.6,84,721/- (Six Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One) the appellant / opposite party shall pay to the respondent/ complainant Rs.4,20,656/- (Four Lacs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six). Other directions given in sub-paragraph Nos.1 & 2 as well as sub-paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of paragraph No.14 of the impugned order shall remain unchanged. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
President Member
/03/2026 /03/2026
Pronounced on: 06th March 2026
Partly allowed Page 11 of 11