Quorum  : Sh. K.S. Mohi, President

                   Sh. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member                            

                  Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                                                              ORDER                                       

Sh. K.S. Mohi, President

1.  The complainant has filed the present complaint on 28-06-2016 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a registered owner of car Tata Indica make 2007 bearing no.DL-8 CM 4547 and the said vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. (OP) vide policy no. 360400/31/11/6100000511 for the period 15.04.2011 to midnight of 14.04.2012 with IDV of said vehicle as Rs.2,25,000/. It is alleged by the complainant that on 11.12.2011 at about 7.00 AM, the insured vehicle was stolen and an F.I,R was  registered in P.S Vijay Vihar vide crime no.477/11 U/s 379 on 12.12.2011. The said vehicle was recovered from P.S Kotwali Sambhal Distt. Bhim Nagar UP wherein the said vehicle was lying in a bad condition as front both tyres with rim as well as stepni with battery along with car stereo were missing and apart from these steering lock was broken and left front side of the said vehicle was badly damaged. The said vehicle was case property in FIR No.16/12 U/s 420/467/471/468/411/413/414 IPC in P.S Kotwali Sambhal Distt. Bhimnagar UP. On 29,02.2012 one Head Constable, namely, Sh. Charan Singh of P.S Vijay Vihar accompanied with him went to P.S Kotwali Sambhal and the vehicle in question was taken back to P.S Vijay Vihar Delhi by towing through Pardeep Breakdown Services for which Rs.6000/- were charged vide cash memo no. 033 dated 29.02.2012 which was paid by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant got released said vehicle from the concerned P.S Vijay Vihar through Court’s order and the said vehicle of the complainant has taken to M/s R. K. Automobiles 70, Uday Singh Place, Naharpur Sector-7 Rohini Delhi-110085 for repair works. The complainant for the purpose of insurance claim approached Divisional Office Rohini by furnishing required documents and his claim forwarded to opposite party vide claim no.360400/31/11/6190000413 against policy no. 360400/31/11/6100000511 of the complainant. One Sh. Sunil Dhawan was appointed as surveyor by the OP, who inspected the vehicle of the complainant in the above said work shop. The complainant had handed over to surveyor entire required documents afresh with cash memo of replaced parts amounting to Rs.39330/- along with towing cash memo amounting to Rs.6000/- and repair’s bill-cum-receipt amounting to Rs.16484/- totaling to Rs.61814/-. It is alleged by the complainant that he had completed all the formalities as per instructions and directions of surveyor of the opposite party and subsequently handed over each and every documents to the said surveyor but surveyor ignored the    bill amount of Rs.61814/- and sanctioned final claim amount voucher amounting to Rs. 11,536/- only.  Complainant sent legal notice dated 05.06.2012 through his counsel  but the OP replied  in a vague manner. Aggrieved from this complainant prayed to direct OP to pay Rs. 61814/- (claim amount)   and Rs 15000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by him.
2. OP filed reply taking preliminary objections inter-alia  that  the  insured vehicle was recovered with some parts missing  and the loss was assessed by taking into account 50 % depreciation on items – battery and tyres and 35% depreciation was charged on other metallic parts as per policy conditions. OP also  submitted that the stereo was not covered under the policy hence the amount claimed for the stereo was not payable. OP prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant  has filed his own affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand, Sh. Ram ,Area  Manager,  has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of OP testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Complainant and OP have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions filed by the parties and have also heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel  for the parties.
5. The main controversy in the present complaint revolves around the issue as to whether complainant is entitled to the claim amount or not? Needless to say that insurance company has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 11536.90 on the basis of surveyor report and depreciated 50% on items – Battery and Tyres and 35% on other metallic parts as per policy conditons. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in present case duly insured with OP was stolen and was subsequently recovered  with missing parts.  The possession of the vehicle was taken over by local police at PS Vijay Vihar on 29.02.2012 by IO HC Charan Singh vide recovery memo dated 29.02.2012.  The IO has categorically mentioned the missing parts of the car in the aforesaid recovery memo. The observations were -1. Front two tyres with RIM and stephny were missing, 2. Battery and stereo installed in the car were missing.  3 Starting lock was broken  and 4. Left side of bonnet was damaged due to accident.   Now the complainant can claim compensation for the price of the aforesaid missing parts  and the repair of the damaged bonnet.   The complainant has placed on record the cash memo of the spare parts and labour charges for repair of bonnet.  Complainant has placed on record cash memo dated 28.03.2012 for purchase of three tubes for Rs. 10,200/- and three wheel rims for Rs. 2580/-.  He has paid Rs. 4500/- towards battery and Rs. 7000/- towards labour charges for repair of the bonnet totaling to  Rs. 24,280/-.  Though stereo of the car was also found missing but the same was not covered under insurance policy hence not payable.  Complainant has also paid towing charges which is also not part of the insurance policy.  He got the vehicle repaired for other parts which do not found mention in the recovery memo dated 29.02.2012.    The complainant has relied upon judgment  reported in New India Insurance Company Ltde V/s Pardeep Kumar,  Civil appeal no. 353 of 2002 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that surveyors report is not the last and final report . It is not sacrosanct that cannot be departed from.  It is not conclusive.  The OP on the other hand relied upon Maharashtra State Consumer Authority reported in Shekh Faqir Ahmed V/s National Insurance Company  F.A. no. 601 of 2007 dated 29.04.2013 in which the Hon’ble State Commission Mumbai held that   the surveyor report is important piece of evidence and it cannot be thrown away without consideration.    So far as surveyor report is concerned it is a good piece of evidence to be relied upon by the fora unless suffering from any illegality. In the instant case since the car insured was having four missing parts with damages on its front bonnet. The complainant shall be entitled for  sum of Rs. 24,280/- therefore we award a sum of Rs. 24,280/-  with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.10.2012  till realization. We also award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment, mental agony loss of time which will also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
6. The OP  shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 9% shall be payable on the entire above mentioned amount from the date of this order till realization.

 Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced this ___________day of __________2017.