Heard Learned Counsel on behalf of appellant.   

         2. This appeal has been filed U/S-41 of Consumer protection Act 2019 (Here in after called ‘the Act’) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission, Dhenkanal. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

           3. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the complainant being owner of the vehicle No. OR- 06B/4065 had purchased policy for the vehicle from the O.P for the period covering from 29-10-2003 to 28-10-2004. It is alleged that on 07-05-2004 at about 1.00 P.m the vehicle met accident and one labour died. After lodging informtion to police, the matter was informed to the O.P who deputed surveyor to assess the loss. Actually the complainant has spent Rs. 1,54,384/-. Since the complainant did not get compensation and the claim was being repudiated illegally,  complaint is filed by the Complainant.

             4. O.P filed written version stating that they have already assessed loss and complainant’s allegation is false. They also submitted that the vehicles driver has no valid driving license .Therefore, defieincy in service does not arise on the part of O.P.

             5. After hearing both parties the Learend District Forum passed the following order.

              “That, the complaint petition is allowed on contest against the O.P without cost. O.P is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.00/- ( Rupees one lac) to the complainant including repairing charges and deficiency of service within 3 months from the data of this order . Parties are to bear their own cost.”

         7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper prospectives and  passed illigal order  .Amount of compensation is based on evidence of surveyor. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

           6. Considered the submission of the appellant, perused the DFR & impugned order.

           7. No doubnt vehicle had met  accident during currency of the policy. Only question arises about  settlement of the claim. The O.P has not proved the  reasons for not settling the claim.

         8.  Surveyor’s report is verified. We found there is some discripancy in computing loss because on the spare parts there is less deduction without reason and there is mistake of reducing the labour charges as estimated. Therefore, we after screening the surveyor report, found that the complainant is entitled to get  of Rs. 70,000/- . Therefore, we affirm the finding of Learned District Forum but modifing  the impugned order by directing the O.P to pay Rs.70,000/- to the complainant within 2 months from the receipt of order copy failing which it will carry  interest  12 %  per annum from date of impugned order  till date of payment.

             9. The case is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.