Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

            This  is  a  complaint  petition filed  by the  complainant U/s. 12  of C.P. Act, 1986.

2.       The  case  of the  complainant is that  he  is the  registered  owner-in     possession  of  a truck  bearing  Regd. No. OR-19N-5551 . He  purchased  the  said  vehicle  to earn his  livelihood. The vehicle  was  hypothecated  to  M/s. Indusind Bank. It  was  insured  under the  opp.party  and   insurance  policy bearing No. 163800/31/11/6300009739  was issued in favour  of the  complainant.  It  was    valid  from  01.02.2012  to 31.01.2013 .The  photo copy  of the  R.C  book is  Annexure-1 and  photo copy of  insurance policy  is Annexure-2.Unfortunately  on 07.05.2012  the  vehicle of the  complainant  met with an accident  near Village Uraodabri, Rajnandgaon, as  a result  of  which  it was completely damaged. The  complainant  lodged his own damage  claim with the opp.party  who deputed the  surveyor , who inspected the   vehicle. The  complaint  was asked by the opp.parties  to  submit the  estimate of  his  accident  vehicle for  processing  of his  claim. Immediately the  complainant  submitted the   estimate bill  amounting  Rs. 1,14,500.00 to  the opp.parties. Annexure- 3  is the  photo copy   of the  said estimate. After  lodging  his  claim the opp.parties instructed the  complainant   to  repair his  vehicle  and  submit the   final bill . The  surveyor  appointed  by the opp.party  surveyed the  damaged  vehicle  during  repairing   but the  surveyor  did  not  supply the  copy   of the   survey report  inspite  of  his  demand. The  non-supply  of the  survey  report is  deficiency in service on  the part of the opp.parties. With much  difficulties the  complainant   arranged   money and   got  his   vehicle repaired. Thereafter  he  submitted the  final  bill amounting Rs. 114,740.00 to the opp.party. Annexure- 4  is the  copy of the  final  bill. The opp.party  did not  settle the  claim   within three months  from the date of  lodging the  claim. The  surveyor  has not conducted the  survey  works  properly with  ulterior  notice. The  complainant    approached  the  officials of the opp.party several times, who deferred  the payment on different pretext. Due  to  non-settlement   of  legitimate claim, the  complainant suffered  harassment, mental agony and financial  loss, for  which  he is  entitled  for compensation. Hence  this  case.

3.         In  pursuance of  notice the opp.party entered   his appearance through advocate and filed  his written statement.

           The  case of the opp.party  is that the  claim of the  complainant is  not maintainable  in the eye of law. The complainant is not  a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. The  claim is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder  of necessary parties. The complainant has insured his  vehicle under the opp.party  and  insurance  policy was  issued in his  favour. The complainant  is  a  Proprietor  of  a farm and  owner of many vehicles and used those  vehicles for the purpose of his  business. Hence he is not  coming under the  purview of  Consumer Protection Act. The policy issued to the  complainant is based on the terms and conditions of the policy. The  contents of paragraph- 6   of the  complaint petition are false. The surveyor  Engineer S.R.Sarangi  has informed  the  complainant  about the  details  of  assessment through  his  letter dtd. 23.08.2012   sent to the  complainant through  Reg.post with A.D. Soon after  receipt of the information from the complainant the opp.party deputed the surveyor  , who has surveyed  the  damaged  vehicle and  informed the  assessment by his letter dtd. 23.08.2012. The  complainant has  not raised  any objection to the assessment made by the  surveyor,  for which  the surveyor  submitted his  report  before the opp.parties basing  on the calculation  as informed to the  complainant. After getting the  surveyor’s report  the opp.party has prepared  the pre-received voucher for   settlement of the  claim and   informed the  complainant  by letter dt. 05.02.2012.Without  supplying  the bank details  for payment, the  complainant  sent  a letter to the opp.party  for  settlement of the  claim. The allegations   made in  paragraph- 9  of the   complaint  petition are  false. The surveyor  loss assessor  is an independent person, who has  got adequate qualification to evaluate the loss. In this  case Mr.Sarangi has assessed the  loss to be Rs. 28,300.00  which was based on policy condition after deducting   policy  and INT-23,salvage etc. The  opp.party has   never harassed the complainant. The   service  render by the opp.party  is prefect one. The opp.party   is the  custodian of  public  fund  and  cannot  allow mis- utilisation of the  same. The  complainant  is  not entitled to  damage at all. The case be dismissed.

4.         Non of  the parties  adduced  evidence  before this Forum  ( at present Commission), so the present complaint is  to  be disposed of  basing on the   complaint petition and  the  documents  filed by the complainant , show cause and the  documents  filed by the opp.parties.   

5.       Admittedly  the  complainant is  the  registered  owner  in  possession of  truck bearing Regd. No.OR-19N-5551  which  has  been hypothecated to  M/S. Indusind  Bank .It   is also   admitted that the  vehicle was  insured  under  the opp.party vide policy No. 163800/31/11/6300009739 which was  valid  from 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2013 .Annexure- 1    is the  photo copy of the    of the Registration certificate of the  truck and Annexure- 2  is the photo copy of the        insurance  policy. The  fact that the  said  vehicle  was    met  with  an accident on 07.05.2012   is  also  not disputed. The dispute is that the  complainant  has   claimed  an  amount  of  Rs.1,14,500.00   towards the cost of the repairing   of  the vehicle where as the opp.party has  agreed to pay an amount  of Rs. 28,300.00  which  is based on the report submitted by the surveyor loss assessor. The  complainant  has  filed  the  photo copy of  some  bills   issued  in  hi  favour  by  the  workshops  who have  repaired the   damaged  vehicle of the   complaint  and  issued  those  certificates. On perusal  of the  photo copy of   the  survey report  of  Mr.Sarangi  dtd. 15.09.2012  it  appears that  after  his   survey  he  found that the   complainant  is  entitled to Rs. 28,300.00 only ,not the  amount   claimed   by him. It is  settled  principles  of law , that   unless  there is  reason   to  discredit  the surveyor’s  report it is to be  accepted. In this  case we  did not  find  any reason to disbelieve the  surveyor’s report. It  further transpires  from the  photo copy of     the  documents   filed  by the opp.party  that the  complainant  was offered the  aforesaid  amount  of  Rs.28,300.00  but  did not  turn-up to receive the same. The claim  raised by the  complainant  against  the opp.party is not  based  on legal  and admissible evidence .

6.         Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

           The  case be  and the  same  is  allowed  in part  against the  opp.party. The opp.party is directed to  pay an amount of Rs.28,300.00 (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand  Three Hundred ) only  along  with  interest @ 7% per annum from August, 2013  till  payment  is  made. The opp.party is directed to   pay the   ordered amount within one  month from the date of receipt of this  order, failing which   it  will carry penal interest  @ 12% per  annum.