ORDER
Per: Raj Kumar Pandey (Member)
Dated-30.01.2024
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2016, passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Motihari, East Champaran (In short the District Commission),in complaint case no- 40 of 2015 by which, appellant (O.P. no-1) was directed to pay Rs. 71,551/- to the complainant (Respondent no-1) within one month from the date of passing of the impugned order failing which the Appellant would be liable to pay general interest @ 9 % p.a.
2. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the O.P. no-1 in complaint case no- 40 of 2015 before the Learned District Commission.
3. Brief facts of the complaint case necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are that there was accident and damage to the vehicle (Quanto, Mahendra Make) and for the same appellant was intimated. The vehicle was insured with the appellant. Respondent no-2 was given the vehicle for repair. On appointment of surveyor by appellant the damage was assessed Rs. 56,449.86/- by the surveyor, thereafter Rs. 1,000/- was deducted by the insurance company as less policy excess and rest amount of Rs. 55,450/- was paid to the insured (complainant). It is the further case of the complainant that the damaged vehicle (Registration No- BR-O5-P-8322) got repaired in the workshop of opposite-party no- 2/ respondent no- 2 and total cost of the repairing comes to Rs. 1, 45,018/-.After getting payment as assessed by the surveyor appointed on behalf of the insurance company the complainant approached to the appellant for payment of rest amount Rs. 89,568/- including Rs. 2,000/- as expenses to bring the vehicle into the workshop of O.P. no- 2/Respondent no-2. It is the further case of the complainant that several times he contacted to the appellant for the payment of rest amount and also sent a complaint letter by registered post, but no interest was shown by the O.P. no- 1/ Appellant, hence, he filed a consumer complaint before the Learned District Commission claiming Rs. 1, 91,568/- against the O.P. no- 1/ Appellant in support of his claim complaint filed certain documents before the Learned District Commission also.
4. On notice opposite-party No.- 1/Appellant appeared before the Learned District Commission and filed written version, in which the O.P. no- 1 insists upon the surveyor report in connection with the damaged vehicle and denied the claim of the complainant. It had been further stated that the amount as assessed by the surveyor appointed on behalf of the O.P. no-1, had received by the complainant and as such the claim of the complainant had been satisfied. It had been further contended that the bill with respect to repairing of the damaged vehicle was fake and on that basis no any claim of the complainant is outstanding before the O.P. no-1. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
5. After hearing both the parties the Learned District Commission relied upon the facts of the complaint of the complainant and came to the conclusion that there was repairing cost of damaged vehicle was Rs. 1, 27,001/- and after deducting the paid amount Rs. 55,450/- to the complainant, the Learned District Commission passed the order as mentioned in paragraph no-1 of this order.
6. Appellant aggrieved by the said order and preferred this appeal before this State Commission, on the grounds that the surveyor report cannot be brushed aside. However, the Learned District Commission ignored this fact hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it has been further prayed that the order passed by the Learned District Commission set to be aside and allow this appeal.
7. In this appeal after first notice none of the Respondent was appeared but on the 2nd notice one Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate appeared on 29.11.2023 and filed reply on behalf of the respondent no- 1 along with some document as well as copies of case laws, however no separate vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the respondent no-1 but on page no- 1 of the reply the signature of the respondent no-1 has been available.
8. Written notes of argument along with copy of some case laws have already been filed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, which is available on record.
9. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties and gone through the record. After perusal of the record this fact came into our knowledge that this appeal was admitted on 10.04.2017 and delay was condoned for filing of this appeal subject to the payment of Rs.200/- as cost. But no receipt with respect to payment of the cost is available on the record. So far as regards the law point involved in this appeal is mainly concerned with “whether repairing bill invoice issued by a private workshop will superceded the surveyor report in connection with the claim of damaged vehicle”.?
It is settled principal of law that surveyor report is an important document which cannot be brushed aside unless and untill there is cogent and relevant evidence to the contrary. Surveyor report is an important piece of document and should be given proper weitage unless there are contrary reasons to this regard the same.
Learned District Commission has not assigned any reason that why surveyor report was not considered neither given any reason how did the Learned Commission disbelieve the surveyor report.
As such considering the facts and circumstances and also following the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C., we find no reason to disbelieve the surveyor report as also on the basis of this facts that complainant has already accepted the amount sent by the insurance company in his account. No claim of the complainant was rest. Hence, the order passed by the Learned District Commission on dated 28.12.2016 in complainant case no. 40 of 2015 is set aside.
10. As a result this appeal is allowed.
11. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019 and also to be sent to the learned District Commission by way of proper mode of service. Order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.
12. Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.
