Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2.      Here is an appeal filedu/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being owner of truck bearing Registration No.OR-05V-3557 has purchased insurance policy  for the vehicle from OP No.5 on payment of due premium covering the period from 30.6.2006 to 29.6.2007. It s also alleged that he has purchased the vehicle  throughfinance from OP Nos. 1 to 3.  It is also the case of the complainant that on 3.4.2007 the vehicle met accident and thereafter the matter was informed to the police. Police seized the vehicle but later on it was released and the vehicle went for repairing. The complainant has informed the OP – insurer  forsettlement of the claim but on 25.11.2008 the claim was repudiated on the ground that no document was submitted by the complainant. Finding no other way the complaint was filed.

4.      The OP No.5– insurer filed writtenversion stating that the claim has been received and the surveyor inspected the vehicle and also the surveyor asked for the documents on different occasions but there is no document filed inspite of letter dated 11.9.2007 and 22.1.2008 etc. Since the documents were not  filed the surveyor closed the file and the matter was repudiated as “No Claim”.

5.      OP No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable against him because this is a matter between the complainant and the insurer.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
                   “xxx     xxxxxx

In the result, this complaint is allowed on contest against OP No.5 with cost at Rs.1,000/- exonerating other OPs of any charge. The OP No. 5 insurance is directed to pay Rs.1,94,662/- to complainant with 10% interest per annum from 1.1.2008 till date of payment within 30 days from the date of this order to avoid further enhancement of the rate of interest to 15% on total decretal amount for further delay.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum passed the impugned order by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the complainant having not supplied any document inspite of request has violated the policy condition. This is the reason for no-settlement of the claim and finally repudiated as “No Claim”. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugnedorder by allowing the appeal.

8.      Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the OP – insurer although has been informed but didnot take step to consider the claim. Therefore, shesupports the impugned order.

9.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the  respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

10.    It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident and the surveyor was deputed who inspected the vehicle. The document vide Annexure – 3 shows that the matter has been informed to the police. Annexure – 4 shows thatthe vehiclehas been repaired by the dealer of Tata Motors but not a single document was filed to show that letter was sent to the complainant to produce thedocument.

11.    However, even if the letter is sent but the duty of the surveyor  tovisit the vehicleas it was in the garage, it is for him to compute the loss and infact,  he computed the loss. Moreover, the surveyor should have gone to the police station when the matter has informed to the police. When the surveyor has  lot of duty to perform,  the blamecannot be made to the complainant. Even if the surveyor asked for documents  but at the same time computed the loss, the non-settlement of the claim by the OP – insurer is deficiency in service on the part of the OP - insurer. Therefore, we are of the view that the OP-  insurer has committed deficiency in service. In the facts and circumstances the complainant has proved the case that the OP– insurer has got deficiency in service by not settling the claim. With regards to computation of loss the report of the surveyor can be considered as loss computed by him and accordingly, learned District Forum awarded the amount.During course of argument, learnedcounsel for the appellant submitted that the interestamount should be reconsidered as they are not required to pay interest.

11.    When the complainant has made claim and on evasive ground the OP – insurer repudiated same, definitely the OP – insurer is liable to pay interest instead of repudiating the claim. Rather it is found that interest of 10%  is in higher side. While confirming the impugned order, we hereby direct the OPs to pay Rs.1.94,662/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the complainant from the date of impugned order till the date of payment. Rest of the impugned orderremains unaltered.

          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.