Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

                Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellants/OPs challenging the Judgment and Order dated 04/05/2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum in Complaint Case No. CC/53/2014 allowing the complaint on contest with the directions upon the Appellants/OPs to pay to the Respondent/Complainant an amount of Rs. 50,000/-only as cost of repairing of the damaged vehicle.

                The Appellants/OPs were directed further to pay to the Respondent/Complainant a compensation for mental pain and agony and cost for the amounts of Rs. 4000/- and 1000/- respectively.

                The Appellants/ OPs were directed to pay the entire awarded amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned judgment and order, failing which, as ordered, the entire amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of expiry of the given deadline till its full realization.

                The facts of the case, in a nutshell, were that the subject vehicle owned by the Respondent/Complainant, insured under policy sponsored by the Appellants/OPs, met with an accident on 19/01/2013 at Joypur, Bankura and was damaged to a considerable extent. A complaint was made with the Joypur Police Station and a GD entry was accordingly recorded. The vehicle was repaired by the Complainant in consultation with the Appellant/OP No. 1 and a claim against the repairing to the tune of Rs. 83, 137/- was submitted to the Appellant/OP Insurance Company. There being no reimbursement in spite of submission of claim in time with all relevant papers, the aggrieved Respondent/Complainant filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum alleging  the deficiency on the part of the Appellants/OPs. Impugned Judgment and Order originated from the said Complaint Case.

                The case was heard ex-parte against the Respondent/Complainant.

                The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants/OPs submitted that he did not want to dispute the happening of the incident, damage of the subject vehicle, validity of the insurance policy and submitting claim for reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 83,137/-allegedly spent by the Respondent/Complainant towards repairing of the vehicle. Drawing the notice of the Bench to the running page 35, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the loss sustained by the Respondent/Complainant due to the damage of the vehicle was assessed by the surveyor engaged by the Appellants/OPs was Rs. 32,000/-. The Ld. District Forum, as submitted, passed an order for payment of Rs. 50,000/-as repairing cost together with the additional amounts of cost and compensation  of Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively against the claim of Rs. 83,137/-furnished by the Appellant/Complainant.

                As he continued, the Appellants/OPs don’t have any hesitation to pay compensation to the tune of the loss assessed by the surveyor. He, at the same time, submitted that the Respondent/Complainant did not furnish the claim bill in original which, as he went on to submit, was a primary requisite for sanctioning any claim. He, in his submission, made it very clear that the surveyor’s recommendation would be given due honour only when the bill, in original, for repairing the vehicle would be furnished by the Respondent/Complainant.

                The Ld. Advocate concluded with the prayer for the impugned order to be modified in the light of the above scenario.

                Perused the papers on record and considered submissions of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants/OPs. We don’t find any reason for sanctioning Rs. 50,000/- towards reimbursement of repairing cost which the Ld. District forum had sanctioned in the impugned order, particularly when, the surveyor assessed a loss of Rs. 32,000/- in an unambiguous term.

                We don’t deny the fact that the surveyor’s report is not so sacrosanct to be followed on dotted lines on all occasions. We, at the same time, intend to keep alive in mind to the settled principle of law to the effect that the surveyor’s observation is not to be laid aside without assigning any reason. On the instant occasion, the impugned judgment and order appeared to be silent about surveyor’s report. It lacked clarity as to why the assessment made by the surveyor should not be taken into count while passing award in favour of the Complainant.

                The record did not reveal any bill towards repairing of the vehicle. The bill, as it revealed from the record and the submission as well, was claimed to have been filed by the Respondent/Complainant while the Appellants/OPs denied to have received any such bill. Since the case was heard ex-parte, the case record was devoid of any repairing bill for obvious reason. In the light of the above, the Appellants/OPs’ submission impressing upon not filing the bill in original by the Respondent/Complainant for the claim to be settled appeared to have reasons to be given importance.

                We, in view of the above observation hold that the Appellants/OPs did not have any deficiency in rendering services. We, accordingly, intend to modify the impugned order.

                Hence,

Ordered

that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part. The Appellants/OPs are hereby directed to reimburse jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 32,000/- only in favour of the Respondent/Complainant subject to production of the bill in original by the Respondent/Complainant to the Appellants/OPs.

                The reimbursement should be made within 45 days from the date of submission of the subject bill in original, failing which, simple interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue to Rs. 32,000/-from the date of default till the entire amount is fully realized.

                No order as to the cost and compensation is passed in the given circumstances.

                The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly.