D.o.F: 11/5/09 D.o.O:19/8/09 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.119/09 Dated this, the 19th day of August 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER Mubarak, S/o Mohammed Kunhi, Drishya Advertising, KMC.3/409, Durga High School Road, Kanhangad. : Complainant (k.Abdul Nazir,Adv.Kasaragod) The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Padmavathi Commercial Complex, : Opposite party M.G.Road,Kasaragod. (Adv.C.Damodaran,Kasaragod) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT The case of the complainant Mubarak in brief is that as against his actual loss of Rs.41887/- towards the repair of his vehicle which was retraced after a theft, the United India Insurance Corporation has allowed only Rs.5575/-. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is also the allegation of the complainant that the surveyor demanded illegal gratification for enhancing the assessed amount. 2. Opposite party in their version submitted that the vehicle KL-60/4995 was the subject matter of theft suffered some minor damages due to mishandling of the vehicle by the accused persons. It was not involved in any accident. The vehicle was removed to the garage without giving an opportunity to conduct spot survey. The allegation against the surveyor is baseless. Had the complainant got any grievance he could have engaged any other authorized surveyor. But the complainant had not made any complainant to opposite party. The compensation of Rs.5575/- was offered according to the report of the surveyor. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. Ext.B1, the quotation prepared by the repairer dtd.10/11/08 and Ext.B2 the survey report is marked . Both parties heard. 4. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has incurred a sum of Rs.41887/- to repair the vehicle. With regard to the allegation that the surveyor has claimed illegal gratification as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party . Sri.C. Damodaran, the complainant could have approached opposite party to appoint a surveyor according to his choice. But no such steps are taken by the complainant. 5. The opposite party offered Rs.5575/- as per the report of the surveyor. The report of the surveyor is not the last and final word for settling the claim and if there are convincing reasons certainly it can be departed. But such reasons are absent in this case Therefore the complaint fails and hence we dismissed the complaint. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: B1- 10/11/08-quotation B2- Survey report eva/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
