This appeal is arising out of and directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum at Tura in C.P. case No. 5/96 whereby the complaint petition of the complainant was allowed to the extent indicated in the order. Before entering into the merit of the case we would consider the application for condonation of 48 days delay in preferring the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the condonation Petition and submitted that the appeal deserves outright dismissed at the threshold. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and considering the facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the trend of law in this regard, we condone the delay and propose to hear the appeal on merit.

 

2. The complainant lodged the complaint interalia on the ground that she owned vehicle No. ML-08-3125 which was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company for the period 8-6-94 to 7-6-95 which met with an accident on 14-1-95 and thus substantially damaged the vehicle. The incident was reported to the Insurance Company and on the basis of the information the Insurance Company caused the survey and the Surveyor appointed by the company submitted his report on 21-1-95. Te formal claim was also lodged thereafter by the complainant which reflected in the report of the surveyor, Shri T.Bardhan dated 22-3-95. On failure of the Insurance Company to settle her claim within a reasonable period the complainant approached the District Forum with a complaint petition. In the meantime, the complainant had to got repaired her vehicle by borrowing money from the open market.

 

3. The Insurance company submitted its written statement before the District Forum, after considering the materials on record allowed the complaint and assessed the amount of compensation of Rs.58,270/- on the basis of the report of the surveyor dated 22-3-95. The District Forum also awarded at the rate of 12% of the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.58,270/- with effect from three months after the date of accident i.e. 15-4-95. In addition the District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- for her mental agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.3,000/- as costs. Hence the appeal.

 

4. Ms Tshering Yangi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company strenuously assailed the impugned judgment and order firstly on the ground that the above finding arrived at by the learned District Forum was based on no evidence. It was submitted by the learned counsel that neither any witnesses nor any affidavit in support of the assertion of the Respondent /Claimant was either adduced, therefore submitted that findings arrived at by the learned District Forum were perverse. Ms Yangi also submitted that in the instant case the appellant sought to settle the claim with a sum of Rs.45,756/- in June, 1996, therefore according to the learned counsel for the appellant the District Forum fell into serious error in awarding the interest as well as compensation and cost to the Claimant.

 

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant on the other hand submitted that in a matter under the Consumer protection Act the strict technicalities of the Evidence Act is not to be insisted. The dispute can be resolved on the basis of materials on record. In the instant case the assessment was abused on the survey report submitted by Shri. T.Bardhan, surveyor of the Insurance Company itself. The said survey report was never questioned by the appellant at any stage submitted the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the respondent the findings of the learned District forum could not be faulted as being perverse. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent further submitted that in the instant case the Insurance Company only came to settle the mater in June,1996 i.e. after about 15 months from the date of accident.

 

6. Ms.Yangi, the learned counsel for the appellants on the other hand submitted that the claim in question was processed in June,1996 only on receipts of the relevant documents from the parties and default was of the complainant and as such that should not be treated as deficiency in service.

 

7. We have given our anxious consideration on the matter and after examining all aspects of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of damage of Rs58,270/- which was rightly based on the report of the surveyor and the award of interest of Rs.12% in the amount of compensation cannot also be faulted. Considering the facts in our view the award of compensation of Rs.15,000/- for complainant’s mental agony and harassment seems to be excessive and accordingly the same is set aside and in our view the amount of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) would be the adequate compensation of the claimant’s mental agony and harassment. Considering the facts situation we also set aside the award of cost of Rs.3,000/-.