Car ‘damaged’ trying to avoid stray dog, man wins Rs 2.3 lakh from insurance firm, repair shop

“Despite requests made by complainant and opposite party No.1(Car repair workshop), opposite party No.2 (Insurer) has not … paid this amount which is deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 has unnecessarily kept the vehicle with him and had not repaired the vehicle till November, 2024 after the date of accident i.e. 17-03-2024, due to which complainant has suffered mental harassment and agony and it is also deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party No.1. Complainant is entitled to the claim,” the July 24 order said.

Car damaged while avoiding stray dog

The man’s insured car met with an accident on March 17, 2024, while he was trying to avoid a stray dog. He informed the insurer about the incident, and the vehicle was shifted to Trinity Auto’s workshop for repair. According to him, after inspecting the vehicle, he was informed of the vehicle’s total loss.  

It was stated that the necessary documents were handed over to the service centre and the insurer as per instructions. Still, after two weeks, the insurer refused to accept the total loss of the car and said that necessary repairs would be done. 

He claimed that although the workshop assured him that the repair would be completed within a month, the vehicle remained at the workshop for several months. He alleged that after repeated requests for delivery yielded no result, he was deprived of using the car for several months. The complainant approached the consumer commission seeking relief.

He argued that the insurer and the workshop had failed to repair and return his vehicle within a reasonable time, causing him prolonged inconvenience and mental harassment.

Car workshop/ repair centre contentions 

The repair workshop contended that although it received the damaged vehicle for repairs, the insurer’s surveyor had initially indicated it was a total loss, and therefore, no repair work was done. Later, after the insurer decided to repair the vehicle, the repair commenced.

According to the workshop, the vehicle was made roadworthy by November 2024; the complainant took multiple test drives and requested minor adjustments, which were carried out. It further stated that the insurer paid only  Rs 52, 102 towards the repair bill, while the complainant failed to pay the remaining charges for the repair and the cost for additional work, despite being asked to take delivery of the vehicle.

Insurer’s contentions

The insurer denied ever declaring the vehicle a total loss; it contended that its surveyor found the workshop’s repair estimate to be excessive, as it included intact parts, and assessed the admissible loss at Rs 52,103 and paid the amount to the workshop directly under the policy. It argued that there was no deficiency in service on its part.

‘Award granted’

The commission held that both the repair workshop and the insurer were responsible for causing inconvenience to the complainant. It directed the insurance company to pay Rs 1.3 lakh towards repair costs, and directed the workshop to pay Rs 50,000 and the insurer to pay Rs 30,000 as compensation for mental harassment, and Rs 20,000 as litigation costs. 

The commission also directed the workshop to hand over the repaired the vehicle Rs 9,310 from the complainant. It also noted that the workshop should have inspected the vehicle and carried out repairs instead of keeping it for several months on the assumption of total loss. It also held the insurer company liable for not assessing the bill correctly, and estimating itlower that workshop’s estimation.

Consumer Takeaway

The ruling underscores that failure to communicate repair status,  or clearly account for insurance adjustments, amounts to a deficiency in service. The decision also highlights that prolonged delays in repairing a vehicle used for earning a livelihood can entitle consumers to compensation.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh helpline: 1800–180–8087) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories

Denied claim over ‘missing bill’ for life-saving injection, Kerala man wins Rs 53,900

Two ‘strangers’ share one blanket during train journey, Indian Railways fined Rs 25,000

Kerala woman’s new doors show cracks, wood worker held liable, to pay Rs 65,000