Archive · 7 Aug 2026
Driver wins Rs 2.3 lakh after dog-dodge car damage
A man was driving his car when a stray dog ran onto the road.
He swerved to avoid hitting the dog, and his car got damaged.
The car was taken to a workshop called Trinity Auto to be fixed.
The workshop kept the car for many months without repairing it.
The man's insurance company only paid a small part of the repair money.
The man was very upset because he could not use his car for a long time.
He went to a special court called a consumer commission for help.
The court said both the insurance company and the workshop made mistakes.
It ordered them to pay the man Rs 2.3 lakh.
The court said companies must repair cars on time and treat customers fairly.
A consumer commission in Una, Himachal Pradesh ordered an insurance firm and a repair workshop to pay a man Rs 2.3 lakh for deficiency in service.
The man's car was damaged on March 17, 2024, when he tried to avoid hitting a stray dog, and was shifted to Trinity Auto's workshop for repairs.
The insurer paid only Rs 52,102 of the repair bill, denied declaring the car a total loss, and called the workshop's estimate excessive for including intact parts.
The workshop kept the unrepaired vehicle for months until November 2024, arguing the complainant failed to pay remaining charges and take delivery.
The commission directed the insurer to pay Rs 1.3 lakh in repair costs and Rs 30,000 compensation, the workshop Rs 50,000 compensation, plus Rs 20,000 litigation costs.
- Who
- A car owner in Una, Himachal Pradesh; the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; an insurance company; and Trinity Auto repair workshop
- What
- The commission held the insurer and repair workshop liable for deficiency in service and awarded Rs 2.3 lakh over delayed repairs and an under-assessed insurance claim
- When
- Accident on March 17, 2024; vehicle made roadworthy by November 2024; order passed on July 24
- Where
- Una, Himachal Pradesh, India
- Why
- The vehicle was kept unrepaired for months and the insurer under-assessed the claim, causing the complainant prolonged inconvenience and mental harassment
Insurer and workshop's defense
Consumer commission's findings
Total loss determination
Insurer and workshop's defense
The workshop says the insurer's surveyor initially indicated total loss, so no repairs were started; the insurer denies ever declaring a total loss.
Consumer commission's findings
The commission noted the workshop kept the vehicle for months based on an assumption of total loss instead of inspecting and repairing it.
Cause of the repair delay
Insurer and workshop's defense
The workshop says the vehicle was roadworthy by November 2024, the complainant took multiple test drives, asked for minor adjustments, and failed to pay the remaining charges or take delivery.
Consumer commission's findings
The complainant says the vehicle remained at the workshop for several months despite promises of a month-long repair, depriving him of use of the car.
Adequacy of insurance payment
Insurer and workshop's defense
The insurer says the workshop's estimate was excessive because it included intact parts, so it assessed admissible loss at Rs 52,103 and paid it directly to the workshop.
Consumer commission's findings
The commission held the insurer liable for not assessing the bill correctly and estimating it lower than the workshop's estimate.
- Total award
- Rs 2.3 lakh
- Repair cost award (insurer)
- Rs 1.3 lakh
- Mental harassment compensation
- Rs 50,000 from workshop, Rs 30,000 from insurer
- Litigation costs
- Rs 20,000
- Accident date
- March 17, 2024
- Earlier payment by insurer
- Rs 52,102
- Order date
- July 24, 2024
- Amount payable by complainant for delivery
- Rs 9,310