News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 8
February 07, 2026 : In a significant consumer insurance dispute, the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur has partly allowed an appeal filed by Priti Sao against Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, directing the insurer to pay ₹76,861 along with interest and compensation.
The order was pronounced on February 6, 2026, in Appeal No. SC/22/FA/290/2025, setting aside an earlier decision of the District Consumer Commission, Durg, which had dismissed the complaint.
Background of the Dispute
Priti Sao had insured her vehicle (registration number CG-07-BB-1307) with Cholamandalam MS after paying a premium of ₹25,200. The policy was valid from June 20, 2019 to June 19, 2020. During the policy period, on June 30, 2019, the vehicle met with an accident near Jeora Sirsa.
She informed the insurer and got the vehicle repaired at a local workshop, incurring expenses of ₹2.30 lakh. A claim was submitted for reimbursement of the repair cost.
However, the insurance company rejected the claim through a letter dated October 25, 2019. The insurer contended that there were material differences between the vehicle inspected at the time of issuing the policy and the vehicle surveyed after the accident. According to the company, the insured vehicle and the accident-damaged vehicle were not the same.
Aggrieved by the rejection, Sao approached the District Consumer Commission. Her complaint was dismissed on April 17, 2025, prompting her to file an appeal before the State Commission.
Commission’s Findings
The State Commission examined the survey reports and documentary evidence on record.
It noted that while the insurer claimed discrepancies in photographs taken before and after the accident, there was no material evidence to establish that the two vehicles were different. Importantly, the Commission observed that the chassis number and engine number, which are the primary identifiers of a vehicle, were not shown to be inconsistent.
The Commission emphasized that mere differences in photographs could not conclusively prove that the insured vehicle and the accident-damaged vehicle were separate.
At the same time, the Commission found that the independent surveyor appointed by the insurer had assessed the loss at ₹76,860.80. The complainant had not produced any technical evidence or expert report to discredit the surveyor’s findings.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Khatema Fibres Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Commission reiterated that unless a survey report is shown to be arbitrary or flawed, consumer forums should ordinarily rely on it.
Final Order
The State Commission set aside the District Commission’s dismissal order and partly allowed the appeal.
It directed the insurance company to pay: ₹76,861 towards the assessed loss as per the survey report, Interest at 6 percent per annum from February 27, 2020 until payment, ₹20,000 as compensation for physical, mental and financial hardship and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. The amount is to be paid within one month from the date of the order.
Case Reference : Appeal No. SC/22/FA/290/2025 – Priti Sao v. The Manager (Claims), Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
