Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2.        Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        Learned counsel for the appellants submitted tht the complainant allegedly has purchased insurance policy for his vehicle form OP Nos. 1 and 2 and the policy was valid from 25.2.2008 to 24.2.2009. The complainant alleged that during currency of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 19.4.2008 and thereafter, it was informed to the insurance company. When no action was taken by the OPs, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complainant filed the complaint.

4.        OP Nos. 1 and 2  filed written version stating that they have already deputed surveyor who has computed the loss at Rs. 2,20,000/- but the complainant submitted that the repairing cost of the vehicle was Rs. 3,22,952/-. So there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

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

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            Under such circumstances we direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.3,22,952/- to the Garuda Bahana for the repairing charges of the accident vehicle of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP No. 1 and 2 would be liable to pay Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only per day after 30 days of receipt of this order till the actual date of payment.”

 6.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum without accepting the surveyor’s report has wrongly accepted the repairing cost of the vehicle submitted by the complainant. According to him the surveyor’s report is best piece of evidence. He submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.        Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order.

8.        Considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.        It is admitted fact that during currency of the insurance policy the vehicle met with an accident and OPs deputed surveyor who has conducted the survey and computed the loss. On verification of record, it is found that the surveyor computed the loss at Rs.2,78,685.75 but fixed at Rs.2,20,000/- deducting the rest of the amount towards salvage and  comp. excess.

10.      On further perusal of record, it appears thát learned District Forum has only directed to pay Rs.3,22,952/- on the basis of repairing cost but not on surveyor’s report. It  is settled  in law that surveyor’s report should be  basis in computing loss. However, surveyor’s report shows that he has also taken  repairing  cost in to  consideration and then computed the loss but has some  mistake  as pointed out in the above paras. Appellant has submitted that they have also paid Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant. Therefore, without any basis while confirming the impugned order, we modify the impugned order by asking OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,78,000/- minus Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount would  carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till payment is made. Rest of impugned order would remain unaltered. No cost.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.