Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal 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 Mahindra Bolero bearing Regd.No. OR-17-J 7199 had purchased the policy of the vehicle from the OP covering the period from 17.10.2012 to 16.10.2013. It is alleged inter-alia that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident. The matter was reported to the OP who deputed surveyor for the assessment. The complainant has produced the document but the OP repudiated the claim without any basis. However, the complainant being not satisfied with the inaction of the OP, filed the complaint.
4. The OP filed the written version stating that they have already computed the loss through the surveyor and they have already paid the amount of loss computed by the surveyor. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
.5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ Hence, we direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.61,663/- (Rupees sixty one thousand six hundred sixty three) only as claimed by the complainant alongwith 6 % interest per annum from dated 08.08.2013 to till date of order alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses within thirty days from the date of order i.e. 26.11.2014 failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 12 % ( twelve percent) interest per annum till date of actual payment.
The complaint disposed off accordingly.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order of the learned District Forum is illegal and improper because it has not taken into consideration , the full and final settlement the discharge voucher duly signed by the surveyor. According to him, once the complainant has already received the claim, he has no cause of action to demand any claim further. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is needless to repeat the fact of the case but the facts remain that during currency of the policy, the vehicle met accident and the surveyor assessed the loss. It is settled in law that the surveyor’s report should be the basis for computation of loss unless it is biased by anybody. We have gone through the surveyor’s report. Admittedly, during course of hearing, the discharge voucher produced before us and we find that the complainant has already paid Rs.30,400/- towards full and final settlement of the claim on 08.08.2013. It is reported by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance-Vrs-Ajmer Cotton & General Mills disposed of on 12th August,1999 where under the complainant has already received the amount as assessed by the surveyor no further cause of action arises. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that discharge voucher being signed without any protest by complainant and accepted the claim amount, we find that no further cause of action arises. The impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.
Appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount be refunded.
