Heard the learned counsel for  the appellant.

2.              This   appeal is   filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The unfolded story   of the complainant is that  the complainant   being owner  of a truck of Tata Model purchased policy for the vehicle from OP No.1 covering the period from 30.12.2006 to 29.12.2007.  It is alleged inter-alia that on 24.03.2007 the truck was capsized at P.Nikhimal on Bamara Kesaibahal Road. As such it was damaged. The matter was reported to the insurer who deputed the surveyor who assessed  the loss after making survey of the vehicle. Challenging the deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

4.              The OP  No.1   admitted to have financed the vehicle but it was not aware of  the accident. The OP No.2 is set-exparte.

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

                       Xxxxxxxx      xxxxx               xxxxxxxxx

                    “ The opp.party No.2 directed to pay Rs.2,02,000.00 (Rupees Two lakhs Two thousand) with interest @  9% per annum from 06.10.2007 ( the date of filing) to  till realization and opp.party No.2 is also directed to pay compensation of  Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand) for mental agony and Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees One thousand) towards costs of litigation to the complainant within a month from the date of order.”

  6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted  that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the case of the complainant with proper perspectives. The complainant raised bills for Rs.2,00,000/- whereas the surveyor has only computed loss of Rs.62,200/- for that the OP No.2 should have accepted by the learned District Forum. Here, no deficiency in service on their part. No notice was sufficiently served on him. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

8.                It is admitted fact that the complainant during currency of the policy  the vehicle of the complainant met accident and he made claim. The complainant submitted the bill for Rs.2,02,000/- but the OP did not agree  to such settlement. Learned District Forum has not assigned any reason as to why he accepted the plea of the complainant although there is surveyor’s report available for computing loss. We  have gone through the surveyor’s report but there lies some error in the surveyor’s report for not  computing the loss while taking the copies of the documents produced by the complainant into consideration.  The OP relied  on the surveyor’s report but  did not accept the case of the complainant which is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.          In view of  above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service for  not proper settlement of the dues. However, we have gone through the surveyor’s report and we are of the view that for no reason the rate of the parts have been deducted.  Therefore, we are of the view that for all purpose the complainant is entitled to Rs.77,981/-. While affirming the impugned order, we modified the  impugned order by directing OP to pay Rs.77,981/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order, failing which it will carry interest @ 12 %  from the date of order till payment made. Rest of the order will remained intact. No cost.

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

               DFR be sent back forthwith.