The present appeal is filed by Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., against the following respondents, challenging the decision of Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No.7 of 2003— 1. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., 3. Shri J.S. Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2. The appellant has sought the following relief:- “a) allow the appeal and set aside the part of decision dated 21.11.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal at Dehradun in Complaint No.7/2003 so far as it held that report of first Surveyor cannot be relied upon, granted interest from filing of Complaint and not from the date of lodging the claim, rate of interest 6% as it was much more in 1996-1997 and deductions of 70% in labour cost as per the report of second Surveyor, and b) pass such other order or orders which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. c) award costs of this Appeal in favour of Appellant and against Respondent No.1.” 3. The appellant is thus seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the State Commission. After adjusting the amount of Rs.12,04,965/- already paid by the insurer to the Complainant (Refer para 20 in the impugned order) the State Commission awarded Rs.25,01,321.10 as payable to the Complainant in the following terms:- “In view of above, the consumer complaint is partly allowed and the O.P. No.1, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay sum of Rs.25,01,321.10/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty One and Ten Paise Only) to the complainant together with interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01.04.2003 till payment and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as litigation expenses.” 4. While the present appeal impleads all four OPs as respondents No.1 to 4, the order of the State Commission, as well as the relief sought by the appellant, are both against respondent No.1/OP-1 i.e. the New India Assurance Company Ltd alone. During the course of the present proceedings, a written response has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4/Oriental Insurance Company stating that— “That the respondent no.4 has only insured the puling unit carrier no.UWA-9976 owned by the appellant vide cover note no.132438 for the period from 15.07.1996 to 14.07.1997 in respect of the third party act liability which may be incurred by the insured vehicle in respect of death or injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.” It has therefore been clarified by respondent No.4 that no cause of action accrued in favour of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent No.4. Further, during the course of the present proceedings, an application was filed by the appellant seeking deletion of respondent No.3 from the memo of parties. Notice issued to respondent No.2 did not evoke any response from him. However, in the consumer complaint before the State Commission, no relief had been sought against OPs 2 to 4. 5. The complaint related to transport of a failed transformer of the appellant/complainant from Pauri Garhwal (Uttaranchal) to B.H.E.L Jhansi for repair. The risk of loss/damage in transit was covered under a Marine Insurance Policy effective from 12.7.1996. The trailer/vehicle which carried this cargo belonged to the appellant/complainant. The vehicle met with an accident on 20.7.1996 while transiting through Daurala, Meerut. The transformer fell down from the trailor and suffered consequent damage. As per the complainant, the B.H.E.L. had given a pre-accident estimate of repair on 11.1.1996 for Rs.34.5 lakhs. After the accident, B.H.E.L. made a fresh estimate of Rs.82.46 lakhs, as the cost of repair. As per the complainant, the eventual cost of repair, including levy of excise and sales tax came to Rs.91,12,479/-. Claim under the Marine Insurance Policy was for the full IDV of Rs.96 lakhs. 6. Allegedly, the Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor (Shri K.K.Sudha), who submitted his report on 20.2.1997 assessing the loss at Rs.55,37,380/- and recommended settlement of the claim at this amount. Respondent No.1/New India Assurance Company appointed another Surveyor (Shri J.S. Mehta). He assessed the loss at Rs.52,59,803 but after several deductions, recommended final settlement of the claim at Rs.12,04,965/- Respondent No.1/New India Assurance Company offered this amount in full and final settlement on 4.4.2001. But, this offer was declined by the appellant/complainant, who chose to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Commission. 7. The detailed computation, which brought the actual cost of repair of Rs.90,43,502.60 to a settlement offer of Rs.12,04.965/- from the Insurance Company, is contained both in the complaint petition and in the order of the State Commission. We do not consider it necessary to reiterate the same. 8. The State Commission held that the report of the first Surveyor K. K. Sudha cannot be accepted in evidence for want of his affidavit in support thereof. The Commission therefore, relied upon the report of the second Surveyor, which was supported by his affidavit. However, the Commission did not allow the following deductions, recommended by second Surveyor Shri J.S. Mehta towards the following— a) replacement of worn out items and salvage, b) towards prejudice to the right of the insurer caused by transport of the transformer in the trailer owned by the complainant. The only deduction which the Commission has allowed is of Rs.15,53,517/- towards cost of labour against initial repair if the accident had not occurred, taking into account the various activities as per Annexure –A of the estimated expenditure quotation of B.H.E.L., but absorbed into accidental damage, at 70% of labour expenses of 22,19,310. 9. We have perused the records and heard at length the counsels for the two parties. We find from the appeal memorandum that the above deduction is one of the main grounds raised in the appeal. Therefore, during the course of consideration of the appeal, an opportunity was given to the appellant to place on record the initial estimate of repair submitted by the B.H.E.L. for Rs.34.5 lakhs. However, when the matter was taken up on 12.12.2011 learned counsel for the appellant stated that ‘since the matter is quite old, the appellant is not having these documents and as such they are unable to file the same.’ 10. The State Commission has examined this matter in detail. It has gone into item by item examination of the 24 items listed in Annexure-A of final repair estimate of Rs.82.46 lakhs. These were compared with the 13 repair items of similar repair activity in the pre-accident repair estimate of Rs.34.5 lakhs, as coming from the report of the second surveyor. The State Commission has accepted the deduction for the reason that these 13 activities were found attributable to routine repairing, as against accidental repairing of the transformer. In this regard neither the appeal memorandum nor the argument of the appellant counsel are able to explain why this deduction should have been disallowed. Further, in view of the failure of the appellant to produce a copy of the original pre-accident repair estimate, no further examination of this point is feasible. Therefore, in our view the appellant has fully failed to substantiate his claim that this deduction has been wrongly allowed by the State Commission. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the report of the first Surveyor K.K.Sudha was wrongly rejected by the State Commission as the Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company itself and the latter had not challenged it. This argument runs counter to the basic rule of evidence. Non-acceptance of the recommendation of the report of Shri K.K. Sudha by the State Commission was, as already noted, due to absence of a supporting affidavit from him. This point had come up for direct consideration by the Apex Court in Mahyco Seeds Vs. Basappa Chanappa Mooki, (Civil Appeals No. 2425-2428 of 2008, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 21.7.2010). It was the case of a consumer complaint against inadequate yield in view of inferior quality of seeds. The National Commission had dismissed the revision petition of Mahyco Seeds Ltd. against the concurrent findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, upholding the grievance of the complainant. However, the complaint filed by the complainant was without his affidavit. The Supreme Court held that:- “It goes without saying that the person filing the complaint must verify which part of his assertion is true to his knowledge- which is true to his information or is based on records. Even though under the provisions of the said Act the procedure to be followed for adjudication on the complain is summary and does not call for any complicated production of the evidence, but the basic rules of pleading and evidence have to be followed and the complainant must support his complaint with some verification so that person, against whom such complain is made, knows what charge he has to meet. This is the basic requirement of natural justice. In the instant case, the same has not been done. Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission in the case before us, is legally unassailable. 12. Having determined the quantum of relief which the appellant/complainant is entitled to receive, the State Commission has observed that settling the claim at Rs.12,04,965 only with inordinate delay, amounted to deficiency of service on the part of OP-1. Therefore, it held that the complainant would be entitled to be compensated reasonably. However, against the claim of 18% by the complainant, the State Commission finally allowed interest at 6% only from the date of the complaint. We agree with the State Commission that the complainant needs to be compensated for the deficiency in service. In our view, interest at 6% does not meet the purpose. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that 6% interest is much too low, even considering the interest rates prevailing during the relevant period. 13. Therefore, taking into account the totality of circumstances, we consider it just and proper to enhance the rate of interest from 6% to 9%. The quantum of relief and the litigation expenses shall remain as awarded by the State Commission. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. | 
