Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for respondent.

 2. This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Hearin after called the Act)  against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission,Kalahandi. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

3. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the complainant purchased the policy from O.P which is valid up to 25-03-2005.During currency of period the vehicle met with an accident on 25-04-2004. Thereafter the claim was lodged before the O.P. No.1 who did not settled the claim and closed the file “as no claim”.Hence the complaint was filed.

4. O.P No.2 is expartee. O.P No.1 has submitted written version stating that they have deputed surveyor who has assessd the loss but the Complainant did not co-operate with the O.P No.1 and   failed to produce the documents .Hence, the O.P No.1 closed the file as “No claim.”

5. After hearing both parties the learned District Forum passed the following order:

 “The O.P No.1 is directed to settle the claim of the complainant on total loss basis within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The case is dismissed against O.P No.2. There shall be no order as to cost and compensation.”

6. Learned counsel on the behalf of appellant submitted that the Learend District Forum committed error in law by      not considering the fact. According to the policy conditions  the parties would submit documents failing which there is violation of policy conditions. So he submitted to set aside the impugned by allowing the appeal.

       7. Considered the submission of learned councel for the appellant, perused the DFR including impugned order.

      8. It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle met with accident .It is not disput that the O.P No.1 deputed surveyor who assesed the loss caused due to the accident but the complainant allegedly has not produced the documents .It is  true that  if the documents are not submitted,  there will not be assessment of loss by the surveryor.When surveryor submitted report, it has computed about loss .Wothout submission of document by counsel there can not be assessment of loss. Moreovr, if surveyor wanted any document, he could collect document from respondent & others No specific document has been demanded by surveyor . On the other hand OP failed to prove non production of document by complainant.  When surveryor assessed loss yet there is no settlement of claim. So complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP for not settling the claim.   

       9. In views of the aforesaid discussion we ment no merit in the appeal. The impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

          Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.

           DFR be sent back forthwith