Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President.<br /> The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant is the registered owner of vehicle Tata Indica Car bearing Regd. No. OR-17-D-0034 which was insured with the Opposite Party under a comprehensive policy vide Policy No. OG-07-2403-1803-00002213 covering for a period from Dt.30/12/2006 to Dt.29/12/2007 and the insured value of the vehicle is Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac)only. During this period on Dt.10/09/2007, the vehicle suffered accident under Bargarh Police Station. The incident was intimated to the Opposite Party. On delayed appointment of a Surveyor, the Complainant proceeded to repair the damaged vehicle. Then Surveyor Er. Mukunda Sahu was appointed and arrived at the garage on Dt.18/09/2007 and instructed the complaint not to proceed with the repair work till his second visit. However, the surveyor inspected the vehicle and took some note and photograph of the damaged vehicle. As the Complainant was not aware of the detail procedural aspect to get reimbursement of the loss of the present nature, the matter was not reported to the police and when he could know the requirement of such report he reported the incidence before the Police Station on Dt.16/11/07. As asked by the surveyor vide his letter Dt.05/10/2007, the Complainant had also sent all original bill and voucher, money receipt and station dairy entry to the surveyor for reimbursement of the loss but even than no amount of compensation was paid by the Opposite Party. When no any claim amount was paid by the Opposite Party for a long time, the present complaint was filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Party towards the Complainant. The Complainant claims Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as compensation towards the repair of the vehicle, Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only towards litigation cost.<br /> <br /> In its version the Opposite Party denied allegations of the Complainant, regarding deficiency in service and states that, the vehicle being a commercial vehicle and used for commercial purpose does not come under the purview of Sec-2(d)(ii) of C.P. Act and hence not maintainable.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party contend that, after getting information from the complainant, deputed Er. Makunda Sahu an independent surveyor to process the claim who went to the garage at Bargarh and inspected the damaged vehicle. On Dt.05/10/2007 the surveyor wrote a letter to the complainant seeking some clarification but denied to have received the clarification letter along with the original bill and voucher, money receipts and station diary entry sent by the Complainant. The damage vehicle had already been dismantled and repaired the denting portion before his arrival and the accident was not reported to police. Due to above reasons the surveyor found difficulties to assessing the loss. But the surveyor on physical verification of the vehicle assessed the loss at Rs.13,800/-(Rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred)only and communicated to the Opposite Party. After getting the report from the surveyor the Opposite Party also vide its letter Dt.19/01/2008 requested the Complainant to send his response to the earlier letter of surveyor within seven days from the date of that letter. But the Complainant remain silent in spite of receiving the letter. So the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant and intimated the Complainant vide its letter Dt.28/01/2008. The Opposite Party tried its level best to settle the claim but due to non co-operation of the Complainant it could not be materialized. Hence there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party towards the complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the complaint petition, Opposite Party's version as well as the copies of documents filed by the Parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> It is not disputed that the Complainant is the registered owner of Tata Indica Car bearing Regd No. OR-17-D-0034 which was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No. OG-07-2403-1803-00002213 for a period from Dt.30/12/2006 to Dt.29/12/2007 under a comprehensive policy insurance. It is also not disputed that during the validity of the insurance period on Dt.10/09/2007 the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged, and intimation of the accident was sent to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party deputed Er. Makunda Sahu, Surveyor to the sport to assess the loss. As the vehicle has already been dismantled and repaired the denting portion before arrival of the surveyor, he on physical verification and after taking into all parameters assessed the loss at Rs.13,800/-(Rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred)only and submitted his report to the Opposite Party. The copy of surveyor report is filed by the Opposite Party. After getting the surveyor report the Opposite Party again asked the complainant vide its letter Dt.19/01/2008 to send his response to earlier letter of the surveyor with in seven days and for non response of the earlier letter, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant, which is illegal and against the principle of natural justice. The Opposite Party insurance company has committed deficiency in service, in not paying any amount even after receiving report of the surveyor deputed by it.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint allowed and ordered as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.13,800/-(Rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred)only as compensation towards loss, Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only for litigation cost to the Complainant within thirty thirty days from the date of this Order failing which the total amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br />