Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 24.08.2007 in a Consumer Complaint No.96/2003 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District, Pune. (2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: The original Complainant/Appellant had purchased a vehicle no.MH-12-AX-9766 from taking finance from original Opponent No.2. He had taken insurance of the vehicle on 06.11.2002 from the original opponent No.1. The vehicle met with an accident on 22.11.2001 and hence, he had filed the claim with the Opponent no.1. The Opponent No.1 Insurance Company had communicated vide its letter dated 03.01.2002 to consider the claim on net loss basis and on 04.01.2002 on a total basis for `5,75,000/-. The Original Complainant/Appellant contended in his complaint that he had agreed to the settlement of insurance claim on the net loss basis. Subsequently the original Opponent No.1 had communicated to settle the claim on repair basis. The original Complainant/Appellant did not agree to settle his claim on the repair basis. The vehicle is in possession of the Insurance Company. Hence, the original Complainant/Appellant had filed consumer complaint praying to direct the Opponent No.2 to settle the claim and to pay compensation of `2,00,000/- for mental agony. (3) The Opponent No.1 – Insurance Company had filed written version before the District Forum denying the allegations made by the Complainant in the complaint. The Opponent No.1 in their written version had stated that they had appointed one Mr.R.B. Nagane, for conducting survey of the accident vehicle and the Surveyor had submitted his report. The Surveyor in his report mentioned that the Insurance Company had offered to the Appellant/Original Complainant to settle the claim on total loss basis, however, Appellant was not ready to accept the proposal. The Complainant had not submitted the claim papers and hence, the Opponent No.1 with the consultation with Autopro Hyundai decided to settle the claim on a repair basis and informed the Appellant/Complainant vide letter dated 18.01.2002. The surveyor in his report dated 19.02.2002 had also recommended the settlement of claim on the basis of repair basis. They have denied that the accident vehicle is in their possession and it is the duty of the Appellant/original Complainant to get the car repaired. Hence, the Opponent no.1 requested that the complaint may please be dismissed. (4) The District Forum, after hearing the Counsels of both the parties have passed an order directing the Opponent No.1 to settle the claim of the Complainant by paying `2,70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint. There is no order against Original Opponent No.2. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed. (5) The Appellant remained absent on 22.10.2010, 11.01.2011 and 17.02.2011. However, in the interest of justice the appeal is proceeded on merit. Admittedly the Appellant/original Complainant had taken an Insurance Policy on 06.11.2002 from the Respondent No.1/original Opponent No.1. It is also not denied that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 22.11.2001. It is the contention of the Appellant that he was ready to settle the claim on the net loss basis. As against this it is the contention of the Respondent no.1/Original Opponent No.1 that they have offered a proposal to the Appellant to settle the claim on net loss basis, however, the Appellant/original Complainant was not ready to settle the claim on net loss basis and hence, they have proceeded with the settlement of claim on the repair basis. In the appeal compilation there is a letter addressed to the Appellant/original Complainant by the Opponent No.1 dated 03.01.2002. In the said letter Opponent No.1 had communicated to the Appellant/original Complainant that they were willing to settle the claim on net loss basis considering the market value of the vehicle just prior to the accident to be `5,75,000/- and requested to give his consent for this amount along with documents to enable the Insurance Company to proceed further in the matter. Further in the compilation there is a letter dated 18.01.2002 wherein the Insurance Company has communicated to the Complainant that despite various telephone conversation as well as letter dated 03.01.2002 regarding settlement of claim towards repair of Hyundai Accent vehicle MH-12-AX-9766 on net of salvage basis, the Appellant has not responded positively on the above offer, in the absence of which they have decided to settle the claim on repair basis to which the workshop management has also agreed. The Opponent No.1 further stated that the Appellant may get in touch with the workshop to do the needful to start repair immediately. In the same letter they have stated that the depreciation of the parts will be borne by the appellant as per the Tariff Advisory Committee. (6) These communications prove that the Insurance Company i.e. Opponent No.1 had tried to settle the claim, however, the appellant had not responded. In the appeal filed by the Appellant he has not attached copy of the survey report carried out by the Surveyor. Not only this, the Appellant remained absent consecutively for three dates. (7) From the aforesaid facts, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No.1/Opponent no.1. The District Forum had passed the order taking into consideration the facts of the case and evidence led by both the parties. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The order of the District Forum, Pune, passed in Complaint No.96/2003 dated 24/08/2007 is hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to costs. Pronounced on 16th March, 2011. | 
