12 CONSUMER PROTECTION JUDGMENTS (Oct.

) 2024

was offered to complainant by OPs. In case, there record by complainant have been
is a breach in making payment within the corroborated by repairers — Surveyor of
stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, insurance company has assessed loss to
the complainant would be entitled to get the vehicle in question to tune of Rs. 1,50,748 on
interest on the awarded amount of compensation repair basis — He has not assessed loss on
@ 9% per annum, for the defaulting period. The the basis of actual repair bills, produced by
complainants are also entitled to a sum of complainant — No infirmity in order passed
Rs.21,000 (Rs.Twenty one thousand Only) on by District Commission below.
account of compensation for mental and physical [Paras 15, 16, 17, 18]
agony. In addition, the complainant is also Result: Appeal dismissed.
entitled to an amount of Rs. 11,000 (Rs. Eleven
Case referred:
thousand only) as litigation charges. It is also
made clear that in case of non-compliance, the Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, II
(2016) CPJ 3 (SC)=I (2016) SLT 295. (Referred)
provisions enshrined under Section 72 of the C.P.
[Para 10]
Act would also be attractable.
Counsel for the parties:
26. Application(s) pending, if any, stands
For the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kiran Advocate, Vice Mr.
27. A copy of this order be provided to all the Rupinder Singh Thakur, Advocate.
parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded
ORDER
forthwith on the website of the Commission for the Mr. Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President —
perusal of the parties. Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated
28. File be consigned to record room 25.6.2022 passed by Learned District Consumer
alongwith a copy of this order. Commission, Sirmaur at Nahan, in Consumer
Complaint No.70/2014 titled Smt. Himta Devi v.
Appeal disposed of. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Brief facts of Case:
IV (2024) CPJ 12 (H.P.)
2. Brief facts of the case are that the
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER complainant being owner of vehicle bearing
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, No.HP-71-1053 has insured the same with the
SHIMLA opposite party/insurance company vide policy
Mr. Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President No.10003/31/12/509649, from 19.12.2011 to
18.12.2012, for a sum of Rs.9,60,901. The vehicle in
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. question met with an accident on 28.8.2012 at
—Appellant Village Shiru Maila Lal Dhang on Renukaji-Nahan
versus road, in which the vehicle was totally damaged. In
HIMTA DEVI (SMT.) —Respondent this regard, FIR No.40/2012 dated 28.8.2012 was
lodged with PS Renuka Ji and intimation about the
First Appeal No. 99/2022—Decided on 29.5.2024.
accident was also given to opposite party/
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — insurance company. The opposite party/
Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 — Insurance — insurance company appointed a surveyor who
Accident of vehicle — Non-settlement of full assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,748. The
claim — Deficiency in service — Bills complainant supplied all the documents
produced by complainant indicates that alongwith charge-sheet to the opposite party/
complainant has spent Rs.3,98,890 on repair insurance, but the opposite party/insurance
of vehicle in question — Bills placed on company has not settled the claim of the

270
Vol. IV SHRIRAM GENERAL INSU. CO. LTD. v. HIMTA DEVI (SMT.) 13

complainant. There is deficiency in service and learned District Commission below has awarded
unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite Rs.2,99,168 on the basis of bills Annexure C-1 to C-
party/insurance company. Hence, the present 9. He further submitted that the learned District
complaint. Commission below has not applied any
3. The complaint so filed was opposed by depreciation and prays that the appeal of the
the opposite party/insurance company by filing appellant/insurance company be allowed.
reply and stated that the intimation about accident 10. On the other hand, learned counsel
was given by the complainant after lapse of 17 appearing on behalf of the respondent/
days of accident. The opposite party/insurance complainant has submitted that the impugned
company wrote three letters to the complainant order does not require any interference and prays
demanding the charge-sheet, but the same was not that the appeal of the appellant/insurance
supplied by the complainant and due to that reason company be dismissed. She has relied upon a
the claim of the complainant was closed. At the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled
time of accident, extra persons than the seating Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, Civil
capacity of the vehicle were travelling in the vehicle, Appeal No.49-50 of 2016 dated 7.1.2016.
therefore, the vehicle was being driven by the FINDINGS
complainant in violation of the terms and
conditions of the policy. In the absence of charge- 11. The admitted fact emerging on record is
sheet, the claim could not be settled, however the that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing
surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of No.HP-71-1053 which was insured with the
Rs.1,50,748. There is no deficiency in service and opposite party/insurance company vide policy
unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite No.10003/31/12/509649, from 19.12.2011 to
party/insurance company. A prayer for dismissal 18.12.2012, for a sum of Rs.9,60,901.
of complaint was made. 12. It is further an admitted fact emerging on
4. No rejoinder was filed on behalf of the record that the vehicle in question met with an
complainant. accident on 28.8.2012 at Village Shiru Maila Lal
Dhang on Renukaji Nahan road, in which the
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in vehicle was totally damaged. FIR No.40/2012
support of their respective pleadings. dated 28.8.2012 was lodged with PS Renuka Ji.
6. After hearing the parties, learned District 13. Intimation about accident was given to
Commission below partly allowed the complaint the opposite party/insurance company. On receipt
of the complainant. of intimation, the opposite party/insurance
7. Feeling aggrieved with the order of learned company appointed a surveyor who assessed the
District Commission, the appellant/insurance loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,748 on repair basis.
company preferred the instant appeal before this 14. The plea of the complainant is that she
Commission. has spent Rs.5,00,000 on the repair of the vehicle
8. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and the surveyor has only assessed the loss to the
and have also gone through the record carefully. tune of Rs.1,50,748 which is contrary to the actual
9. Learned counsel of the appellant/ loss caused to the vehicle in question.
insurance company has submitted that the 15. The complainant has placed on record
impugned order is bad in law and facts. He further the bills Annexure C-1 to C-9. Perusal of the
submitted that vehicle of the complainant met aforesaid bills produced by the complainant
with an accident on 28.8.2012. On receipt of indicates that the complainant has spent
intimation, appellant/insurance company Rs.3,98,890 on the repair of the vehicle in question.
appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the The bills placed on record by the complainant
tune of Rs.1,60,000 on repair basis, whereas, the have been corroborated by the repairers, by filing

271
14 CONSUMER PROTECTION JUDGMENTS (Oct.) 2024

their respective affidavits, who have specifically IV (2024) CPJ 14 (Chhat.)

stated in their affidavits that the complainant got CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER
repaired her vehicle from the said repairers. DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
16. The surveyor of the insurance company PANDRI, RAIPUR
has assessed the loss to vehicle in question to the Mr. Justice Gautam Chourdiya, President & Mr.
tune of Rs. 1,50,748 on repair basis. Perusal of Pramod Kumar Varma, Member
surveyor’s report Annexure D indicates that
surveyor has assessed the loss to vehicle on the SURESH TIWARI —Appellant
basis of inspection of vehicle, however, he has not versus
assessed the loss on the basis of actual repair bills,
BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL
produced by the complainant.
BANK —Respondent
17. As discussed above, it is clear that the Appeal No. FA/23/175—Decided on 10.5.2024.
complainant has spent a sum of Rs.3,98,890 on the
repair of the vehicle in question. As such, report of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —
surveyor Annexure D does not seem to be correct. Banking & Financial Institutions Services —
Savings account — Unauthorised debit
18. In view of the above stated facts and transaction — Failure to get deduction SMS or
circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity OTP — Deficiency in services — Refund
in the order passed by the learned District sought — As per SMS log message of all
Commission below and same does not require any transactions were sent to registered mobile
interference. Consequently, appeal of the number of appellant/ complainant with alert
appellant/insurance company fails and same is that “if txn not done, call 18001801235 or
hereby dismissed and the impugned order remains SMS ADCBLOCK <Acc no> to 9915622622 to
upheld. block all digital channel txns-eOBC” but
19. Parties are left to bear their own costs. even then appellant/ complainant as per his
20. Certified copy of order be sent to the pleadings in complaint itself, did not react till
parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. 16.11.2020 and did not take any step for
File of District Commission alongwith certified stopping such alleged unauthorized
copy of order be sent back and file of State transactions — Appellant/ complainant
Commission be consigned to record room after due himself is a panel lawyer of respondent-Bank
completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending and fact being so he must definitely be
application(s), if any, also disposed of. having technical knowledge and process of
immediately blocking account or ATM card,
Appeal dismissed. in case of any unauthorized transaction
noticed by him — From the SMS log it is also
abundantly clear that all disputed
transactions were ECOM transactions made
through PAYTM, which was not possible
without sharing confidential OTP as
contended by respondent/ opposite party
Bank and prevailing practice with regard to
ECOM transactions — Appellant/
complainant himself was negligent on two
counts, first even after receiving SMS alerts
he did not even turned up for blocking
account to prevent such transactions anymore
— Secondly in not keeping the OTP or PIN

272