News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 16
February 19, 2026 : The reveals that the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has partly allowed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company in a motor insurance dispute, modifying an earlier district commission order and directing the insurer to pay over Rs 13.45 lakh to the insured, along with interest and compensation.
The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has partly allowed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company against an order of the District Consumer Commission, Korba, in a motor insurance claim dispute involving a Hyundai Verna car.
The appeal, registered as SC/22/FA/335/2025, was decided on February 19, 2026. The case arose from a complaint filed by Anil Kumar Agrawal, who had purchased a new Hyundai Verna in December 2021 and insured it under a comprehensive policy issued by Bajaj Allianz.
According to the record, Agrawal bought the vehicle on December 11, 2021, for personal use and obtained an insurance policy valid until December 10, 2022. On January 6, 2022, during the policy period, the car met with an accident near Transport Nagar Chowk while returning from Katghora to Korba. The vehicle was severely damaged, and Agrawal’s son sustained injuries.
The insured subsequently lodged a claim with the insurer. However, Bajaj Allianz repudiated the claim in September 2022, contending that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by Agrawal’s son, who allegedly did not possess a valid driving licence. The insurer relied on survey and investigation reports to support its stand and argued that there had been a breach of policy conditions.
Aggrieved by the repudiation, Agrawal approached the District Consumer Commission, Korba. In April 2025, the district commission partly allowed his complaint and directed the insurer to pay the insured declared value and additional compensation.
Bajaj Allianz challenged that order before the State Commission, reiterating that the surveyor’s findings indicated that the son was driving the vehicle and that the claim was not payable due to violation of policy terms. The insurer also cited delay in intimation of the accident and alleged inconsistencies in the account of events.
After examining the pleadings, affidavits, survey reports, investigation material and police documents, the State Commission found that the insured had produced sufficient evidence to rebut the insurer’s version. The Commission noted that the police records indicated that the vehicle was being driven by a licensed driver at the time of the accident. It further observed that a surveyor’s report, though relevant, is not conclusive and can be departed from if credible contrary evidence is available. In support of this principle, the Commission referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradeep Kumar (2009) 7 SCC 787, which clarifies that a surveyor’s report is not the final word in insurance claim disputes.
The State Commission held that the vehicle had suffered total loss during the currency of the policy and that repudiation of the claim amounted to deficiency in service. However, it found that the district commission had not addressed certain aspects relating to mandatory deductions and salvage rights.
Modifying the earlier order, the State Commission directed Bajaj Allianz to pay Rs 13,45,625 to the complainant, after deducting Rs 1,000 from the insured declared value of Rs 13,46,625. The insurer has also been directed to pay interest at 6 percent per annum from December 26, 2023, until realization.
In addition, the Commission awarded Rs 20,000 towards physical, mental and financial harassment and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. It also clarified that the insurer would be entitled to salvage rights and transfer of registration of the damaged vehicle in its favour, subject to the complainant’s cooperation.
With these modifications, the appeal was partly allowed and the district commission’s order was revised accordingly.
Case Reference : Appeal No. SC/22/FA/335/2025: Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar Agrawal & Others
