Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

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 Mini Van bearing  Regd. No. OD-22-0736 had purchased  a policy covering from the period from 20.09.2012 to 21.09.2013 and during currency  of policy on 02.08.2013  while the vehicle was plying on road it met with an accident on road  of  Bhadrak-Chandaballi near Haladidiha bypass. Thereafter the police was informed. The vehicle was repaired. The matter was informed to the OP who deputed the surveyor. However, complainant spent Rs.1,51,434.42 but the surveyor computed the loss at Rs.48,249/-  although the amount was paid by the OP to the complainant’s account. The complainant did not agree to it. Hence, the complaint  was filed.

4.      The OP   filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable  as there is  arbitration clause in the  policy in question. Further, it is stated that  they have deputed the surveyor who have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.48,249/- and they have already paid the said amount  to the complainant  and the complainant accepted same. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

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

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “ In the result, the complaint is allowed in part against the OP. The OP is directed to pay rest amount of Rs.1,03,185/- within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order alongwith litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the amount settled  has been  already accepted by the complainant, there is no cause of action  to entertain the complaint. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case. Therefore,  he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside  by allowing the appeal.

7.                   Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  the surveyor report is not correct and they have not considered  all the facts and law involved in this case. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant has spent Rs.1,51,434.42 towards repair of the vehicle.Learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. He supports the impugned order.

  8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order .

9.                    It is admitted fact that during currency of policy, the vehicle met accident. It is  admitted fact that the surveyor has computed  the loss at Rs.49,249/-. No doubt this amount has already been paid to the account of the complainant. But the complainant challenged same.  No voucher  towards satisfaction of the complainant  has been filed by  OP inspite of giving time. Therefore, there is still cause of action   to file when the amount spent by the complainant. There is cause of action to file the case and  as such the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  With regard to computation of loss, no doubt it is settled    that the surveyor’s report should be  the basis for computation of loss if   not baised by any means. We have gone through surveyor’s report submitted and  we find that the assessment made has been so far corrected  by some officer of the OP with  some erroneous finding  and some corrections.   In  our considered view  the surveyor’s report is not accordingly beyond doubt.  Therefore, we do not agree with the view of the surveyor’s report.  On the otherhand, complainant has filed the  documents to prove his case  and deficiency in service on the part of OP.  

10.         In view of aforesaid discussion, we found  no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed.

             The appeal devoid of any merit stands dismissed. 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.