ORDER

PER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

The complainant is the proprietor of M/s Dikshit Roadlines who is the owner of a vehicle bearing Registration no. HR 55 K 9222.  The complainant had taken out a policy of insurance from the OP in respect of the aforesaid vehicle which was valid for the period 21.6.2012 to 20.6.2013. it is the case of the complainant that the aforesaid vehicle had met with an accident on 18.7.2012 and on an intimation being given to the OP a surveyor had been appointed who had assessed the loss and filed its report.  An FIR was also lodged in respect of the accident on 18.7.2012   The complainant had lodged a claim with the OP which the OPha failed to settle. Hence, the present complaint. 

The OP has contested the present complaint and has taken a written statement.

At the outset  it is alleged by the OP that the complaint is premature and is liable to be dismissed as such.  It has, however, admitted that it had issued a policy of insurance in respect of vehicle no. HR -55K  - 9222 which had allegedy met with an accident on 18.7.2012.  it has also admitted that on information received about the accident, it had appointed an investigator / surveyor. It has stated that it had asked for some more information/ documents from the complainant which had not been supplied as a result of which it had not been able to process the claim.  It has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

    Admittedly, on receipt  of the information about  the accident, the OP had appointed a surveyor who had prepared a report dated 5.10.2012 a copy of which has been placed on record.    The surveyor had assessed the loss @ Rs 95,661.38 p  only.   Despite the aforesaid assessment the OP has failed to settle the claim and has sought some more documents from the complainant  we had asked the learned counsel for the OP about these documents and have been informed that the documents asked for have been submitted along with the complaint which had been filed before us in the year 2014.   The OP should have, therefore, processed the claim on the basis of the documents filed on record rather than contesting the complaint.   It appears to us that the claim has not been processed in right perspective    and the OP has not settled the claim on  flimsy grounds.    A surveyor is  a neutral person and his report ought to have been  accepted by the OP unless there were strong or cogent grounds for rejection of the same. No such evidence has been brought on record by the OP .   we, therefore, hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under;

1.    Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 95,361.38p along with interest @ 10 % P.A. from  the date of filing this complaint i.e. 19.12.2014 till payment.

2.     Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

             The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. 

    File be consigned to record room.

     Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................