Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.            This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.         The case  of the complainant, in nutshell  is that  the complainant  being owner of a vehicle bearing No.OR-15-E-6252 had purchased insurance policy  for his vehicle from OP covering  the period from 05.11.2002 to 04.11.2003.  It is alleged inter-alia that  the vehicle met accident on 05.11.2002. It is alleged that the surveyor made survey of the vehicle but later on  the OP repudiated the claim basing on the report of another surveyor. The complainant, finding no other way, filed the complaint case.

4.         The OP filed written version stating that after the claim is made they have  deputed the surveyor who assessed  the loss at Rs.39.301.05 but they repudiated the claim although they have   of no mistake with them. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.             After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “The Ops are directed to pay an amount of Rs.39,301/- with interest @ 6 % P.A from the date of repudiation i.e. dt.19.9.2004 till payment to the complainant for the loss and damages caused to his vehicle within one month from the date of order. The Ops are further directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within the said period.”

6.           Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not appreciating  the written version filed by the OP with proper perspectives. According to him the surveyor has assessed the loss but on further scrutiny of the report of other two surveyors it was found that the vehicle could not be  properly assessed for the reasons that the vehicle has not  been kept in the place where accident took place.  Learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.              It is admitted fact that the vehicle during currency of the policy met accident. It is also admitted fact that Mr. H.N. Agarwalla, Surveyor was deputed and he has computed the loss at Rs.39,301/-. There is no ambiguity in the report of this surveyor. The OP relied on another report of the other two surveyors namely Mr. K. Singh and Mr. K.L. Mishra  and they have  re-inspected the vehicle.  It is settled in law   that without any reason the Op can not  engage any other surveyor. Not only this but also    other report   of the surveyor shows that the vehicle has been kept in left side   but at the time of accident it was in right side. Since, the loss of vehicle has already accessed by Mr. H.N. Agarwalla, and there is  nothing to reject   same, we do not rely on the report of other surveyors.  Hence, the loss computed by Mr. H.N. Agarwalla, surveyor is final and loss computed by him should be basis of settlement. . Learned District Forum has rightly followed the principle of law. There is nothing to interfere with it. Impugned order is confirmed.

                Hence, the appeal sans merit and stands dismissed. 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 copy of order received from this Commission.   

                DFR be sent back forthwith.