06.07.2022

ORDER

By Sri Ravishankar, Judicial Member

Heard advocate for appellant.  The learned counsel for appellant submits that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging non-settling the own damage claim and submits that on 23.05.2011 the vehicle met with an accident.  Later the Opposite Party appointed the IRDA Surveyor to assess the loss subsequently final survey report also submitted and on the basis of the same, they have ready to settle the claim to the tune of Rs.27,806=30 whereas the complainant claimed for Rs.1,20,000/- by producing the bills of repair which were not produced before the Surveyor.  Further, the learned counsel for appellant submits that the repairer not examined the author of the bills and at the same time, the Surveyor had assessed the loss basing on the repair given and suggested to pay Rs.27,806/-, hence, submits no deficiency in service on their part, but, inspite of that the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed to pay Rs.1,38,298/- with interest at 12% along with costs.  Accordingly, prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission by allowing this appeal.

2.      On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the Order, it is an admitted fact that on 23.05.2011 the vehicle met with an accident during the policy is in force.  Accordingly, the appellant appointed one IRDA approved surveyor by name Mr. Raghavendra Prasad to assess the loss a final report was submitted and suggested the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.27,806/-.  On going through the Survey Report, the Surveyor has assessed the loss by imposing depreciation on the expenses and the bills which in our opinion is correct and proper.  The District Commission made an error in appreciating the bills produced by the complainant without taking authentication of the documents.  Even on looking at the photos produced before the District Commission, the damages are very meagre.  Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant has rightly appreciated the Survey Report and ready to pay an amount of Rs.27,800/-.  Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  Hence, the Order passed by the District Commission is hereby set-aside, consequently, the complaint is dismissed.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.

        Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

       (Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                             (Ravishankar)        

                 Member                                        Judicial Member