F.A.75 OF  2008  &

                                     F.A. 438 OF 2008                                  

                    Heard learned counsel for   the  appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              Both  appeals are  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Both appeals arises out of one common complaint case.  Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum. F.A.75 of 2008  is filed by complainant  to  enhance  the amount of compensation  whereas  F.A. 438 of2008 is filed by OP No.1,2,3 to set-aside  impugned order.

3.              The  case     of  complainant, in brief is that  the complainant  has carried  out safed Musil plantation  over his land  at Khata No.127. The complainant has raised the medicine plantation at the instance of OP No.4 by incurring loan. He had also purchased the insurance policy from OP No.1 on payment of due premium for said plantation. The policy covered the period  from 21.07.2004  to 20.07.2005 for sum assured of Rs.5,44,000/-. It is alleged inter-alia that in the month of July,2004  the lands started to degenerate. At the advice of OP No.4 the pesticides were purchased and also supplied to plants. Since, there is loss  incurred,  they contacted  OP who deputed  surveyor. After survey they computed loss but the complainant submitted expenditure statement which was not accepted by the OP. Thus, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP No.1 to 3  filed written version  stating that the allegations are not correct. However, they have deputed surveyor who has computed loss of Rs.50,904/-. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ In   the result, we direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,904/- with interest @ 9 %  per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. dt.21.11.2005 together  with cost of  Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order failing which the same amount will carry 12 % penal interest in the best interest of consumer justice.”

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.438 of 2008 submitted that   learned District Forum has committed error in law by not  considering the written version and true facts  of the case  with proper perspectives.  According to him the fungal disease which caused loss allegedly by the complainant  has not been proved. However, they have computed loss but complainant was not  ready to accept  same.  Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by  allowing the appeal. Similarly learned counsel for appellant in F.A.75 of 2008 filed appeal to enhance the amount of compensation.

7.                Considered the submission of learned counsel for the  appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order. 

8.              It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan and raised  medicinal plant on his land. It is also not in dispute that  the medicinal plants were damaged during currency of the policy. It is also not in dispute that surveyor  was deputed and he has computed loss of Rs.50,904/-. The only question to be decided whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.                The complainant has adduced evidence by proving the insurance policy and further documents. The insurance policy is taken for plantation/horticulture matter. The complainant has filed the statement of expenditure but no document is filed to substitute same except field  visit report and some money receipts. Unless  the documents are proved in evidence, it has no evidential value. Be that as it may, the  OP has already computed loss but the complainant has not accepted same. It is well settled in law    that  the loss computed by the surveyor should be accepted for settling the claim unless  it is un trustworthy and bias  one. But , report of the surveyor is  found correct and nothing to interfere.

                  Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeals being devoid of merit stand dismissed. No cost.

Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or website of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                 DFR be sent back forthwith.