Heard learned counsel for the appellant and none appears for the respondent. .
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant being owner of Truck bearing Regn. No. OR 10D 5950 of 1985 has purchased the policy for the vehicle from the opposite party for the period from 4.10.2005 to 3.10.2006. It is alleged that on 23.1.2006 the vehicle met with an accident for which the matter was informed to the opposite party to depute a surveyor. The complainant has alleged that he has claimed Rs.2,50,000/- but the opposite party has not settled the claim. Therefore he filed the complaint case.
4. The opposite party filed the written version stating therein that they have deputed a surveyor, but the complainant has not submitted the documents of the vehicle including the claim form for which they have made up settlement as no claim
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum has passed the following order:-
xxx xxx
“Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to pay Rs. 24,967/- + Rs.50,000/- towards settlement of insurance claim with interest @12% per annum from the date of surveyor’s report i.e. 25.2.2006 till actual payment along with Rs.10000/- toward compensation and Rs. 5000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of dispatch of this order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error by not deciding the case with proper perspectives. The vehicle has been surveyed by the Surveyor and accordingly he has computed the loss. Further he submitted that submission of document is one of the policy condition and the same has not been complied with. It is further submitted that the learned District Forum without following the facts and circumstances of the case passed the impugned order.
7. Considered the submission of the appellant, perused the DFR and the impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident and the surveyor computed the loss at Rs. 41,000/-. Even the complainant does not submit any documents about the loss he incurred but the opposite party should have settled the claim on the basis of the loss computed by surveyor instead of sitting over the matter. Therefore, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party including the complainant.
9. With regard to computation of loss, the surveyor’s report shall be accepted. In the instant case documents have not been filed to justify the claim of Rs. 250,000/- , but the Surveyor’s report is clear to show that the Surveyor has computed the loss at Rs. 41,000/-.
10. Learned District Forum has computed the loss on its own by adding and subtracting without any legal basis on it.
In such circumstances, we hereby accept the report of the Surveyor who computed the loss at Rs. 41,000/-.
11. Therefore, in view of such discussions, while confirming the finality of impugned order, we modify the impugned order by directing the opposite party to pay Rs.41,000/- with 12% interest from the date of impugned order till the date of payment within a period of 45 days from today.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
