Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
FACTS
3. The conspectus case of the complainant is that the complainant being owner of Maruti Van bearing Registration No. OR -14G- 6273 had purchased insurance policy from OP Nos. 1 and 2 for the period from 3.5.2002 to 2.5.2003. It is alleged that on 20.2.2003, the vehicle met accident and the matter was reported to the OPs 1 and 2 who deputed surveyor. The surveyor computed the loss at Rs.1,24,260/-. Thereafter, without any reason second surveyor was deputed. The second surveyor computed the loss but due to non-submission of documents, the OP repudiated the claim as “No Claim”. So the complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complaint.
4. On receipt of notice, OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version stating that after receiving intimation about the accident, they sent their surveyors for survey. After receiving report from the surveyor, they required some documents from the complainant but the complainant did not supply the same for which the OP Nos. 1 and 2 closed the file as “No Claim”. So, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 have no any deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
The OPs 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.1,39,060/- with interest @9% P.A. from 29.3.04 till payment and to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The OPs 1 and 2 shall dispose of the salvage in the way they likes.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned District Forum has passed the impugned order without considering the written version and the surveyor’s report with proper perspectives. The learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the settled principle of law because the surveyor’s report is the basis for computing loss but not any other documents. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has got documents for repairing of the vehicle and accordingly, rightly the learned District Forum passed the impugned order to pay Rs.1,39,060/- with interest.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for both parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident and the surveyor has made survey of the vehicle. It is settled in law that the surveyor’s report should be the basis for computing the loss if it is not disturbed otherwise. In this case, admittedly, Rs.98,000/- has been computed as loss by the surveyor after visit. However, taking the repairing cost into consideration, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,10,000/- payable by OP Nos. 1 and 2 to the complainant.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order is confirmed but the operative portion of the impugned order is modified by directing OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,10,000/- within 45 days to the complainant failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment. Rest part of the impugned order remained unaltered.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
