1. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (for short, the District Forum) and the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner/ Complainant – Mr. Gurtej Singh Brar filed Revision Petition No. 688/2016 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (for short, Respondents). The Complaint filed by the Complainant being Consumer Complaint No. 651 of 2014 before the District Forum was allowed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 25.03.2015 is reproduced as under: -

“6. So, it appears from the evidence placed on record by the OP1 as well as complainant that the vehicle was duly insured with OPI insurance company on the day of accident and after survey the surveyor submitted his report Ex.R4. It is settled principle of law that report of the surveyor cannot be brushed out in absence of specific reasons. Since the complainant has not filed any objection to the report of the surveyor. As such, reliance can be placed on the report of the surveyor. But non settlement of the claim of the complainant by the OP1 clearly amounts to deficiency in service. The second relief of the complainant, which has been sought against OP2 and OP3 regarding the non-delivery of the vehicle. Ld. counsel for complainant has contended that vehicle was taken to OP2 and OP3 for carrying out the necessary repair and the same is lying with the OP2 and OP3 Dada Motors for the last more than 2 years, despite the fact that Rs.80,000/- paid as advance. Due to non settlement of the claim by the insurance company, the complainant was deprived of from the delivery of the vehicle from the Dada Motors.

7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP2 and OP3 has strongly contended that repair of vehicle was carried out. The complainant was duly informed for the delivery of the vehicle, but the complainant had neither paid the remaining balance amount and has not taken the delivery of the vehicle, despite repeated reminders sent by OP2 and OP3. The complainant is still under obligation to pay Rs.2,64,553/-. But the perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any such document from which, it can be presumed that OP2 and OP3 ever refused to deliver the vehicle to the complainant, after making payment of the balance outstanding amount of repair charges. So, there does not appear to be any deficiency in service against the OP2 and OP3,

8. Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OP is directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of the surveyor report within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. Further OPI is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2000/- (Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Further OP2 and OP3 are directed to hand over the car bearing registration no.PB30E-5181 of the complainant against proper receipt and verification, subject to payment of remaining repair charges, which the complainant is liable to pay, after deducting the amount of Rs.80,000/-, which was paid in advance by the complainant to OP2 and OP3. Further OP2 and OP3 are directed not to charge any parking charges from the complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.”

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant was dismissed by the State Commission vide Order dated 14.12.2015.
3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant argued that the Petitioner purchased one Fiat Stile SL Car bearing Registration No. PB 30 E 5181 in the year 2008. The said vehicle was last insured with the Oriental Insurance Company from 2010 to 2011. This coverage period ended on 14.10.2011. The said vehicle was under repair with Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from 01.09.2011 to 24.11.2011. While the vehicle was being repaired, its insurance policy expired. The Petitioner took a new Insurance Policy with the Respondent No.1 bearing Policy No.25331031116120061019 for the period from 24.12.2011 to 23.12.2012 through Respondent No.2.  The Petitioner’s vehicle was involved in an accident just two days after the Insurance Policy was taken i.e. on 26.12.2011.  Immediately after the accident, Respondent No.1 appointed a Surveyor who conducted a Spot Survey on 27.12.2011. The Surveyor appointed by Respondent No.1 assessed the loss of Rs.1,12,040/-.  The Respondent No.2 provided the total estimate for vehicle repairs to be Rs.3,44,553/-.
6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 argued that the Petitioner failed to provide a pre-inspection report.  He submitted that there was a gap of over two months in the insurance coverage and it is mandatory to provide pre inspection report in case of gap between the two insurance policies. The insurance coverage was obtained through Dada Motors on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Respondent No.1 has contended that the date of accident is under dispute as the accuracy of this fact is doubtful. This is due to the fact that there are discrepancies in the odometer readings as recorded by the repairers and the readings recorded in the invoices by the Surveyor.
7. After going through the Order of the State Commission, District Forum and the grounds raised in the present Petition, the Central issue is whether the claim should be treated as total loss or not?  The fact of the matter is that there is a subsisting Insurance Policy issued by an authorized dealer on behalf of the Insurance Company.  Allegation against the Insured to have obtained the Policy fraudulently is not supported by evidence and even if there is any wrongful issue of such Policy, it is the fault of the Respondent No.2, who is the authorized dealer of the Insurance Company and there is no record of any action having been taken against it by the Insurer.  Finally, the Surveyor has assessed a loss.  The only issue remaining to be decided is whether the indemnification should be done according to the assessment made by the Surveyor or the IDV of the vehicle treating it as a total loss.  The two Commissions have gone into this matter and have concluded that the assessment of the Surveyor cannot be ignored and which has taken into consideration the claim of the Insured.
8. It is seen that the Petitioner has reiterated contentions already presented before the State Commission and the District Forum, without introducing any new substantial arguments justifying interference with the well-reasoned Orders of the State Commission. The District Forum has aptly adjudicated on the merits of the case. There is no question of law involved, which requires any intervention of this Commission. No illegality is seen in the Order of the District Forum. However, I am of the opinion that the amount awarded by the District Forum which was subsequently affirmed by the State Commission ought to have been awarded along with interest in order to do complete justice.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Revision Petition is dismissed.  The Order of the District Forum is upheld and modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.1,20,040/- i.e., the amount as assessed by the Surveyor, from one month after the Surveyor’s Report till its realization within six weeks of this Order, failing which the interest rate shall stand enhanced to 9% per annum for the same period.  Rest of the Order of the District Forum stands upheld.