Heard learned counsel for  both the sides.

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  case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant   had purchased the policy for the vehicle bearing No.OR 14M 5350 covering  the period from 23.01.2006  to 22.01.2007. The vehicle was purchased being financed by OP No.2. It  is alleged inter-alia that on 18.05.2006 the vehicle met  accident  and FIR was lodged. The matter was intimated to the police and  the insurer. The vehicle was removed for repair. The complainant alleged that the repairing charge was  for Rs.23,790/-. Inspite of repeated request, the OP No.1 remained silent by not settling the claim. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP  No.1    filed the written version stating  that they have  deputed the surveyor but no document was filed. The complainant only filed the estimate for repairing  of Rs.23,790/- but no further documents is filed to prove  spending same for repair,  for that they have not settled the matter. However,  the surveyor  has computed the loss but due to non-submission of documents they repudiated the claim. Thus, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.                OP No.2 & 3 are set-exparte.

6.            The OP No.4 filed written version stating that the interim cost is very high and the complainant was asked to pay the advance money but  due to negligence of the complainant, the  vehicle remained as such.

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ Thus, under the above circumstances we direct the OP No.1  to pay the repairing charges of the motor cycle as estimated by OP No.4  and further OP No.1  is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation for harassment and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the awarded amount would carry 12 % interest per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the date of actual payment.

         The case is disposed of accordingly.”

8.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that    learned District Forum  has committed error  in law by not considering their written version with proper perspectives.  According to him the direction of the learned District Forum  to pay  the repairing charges  is illegal and improper because the compensation is paid only on the money spent by the owner.  He further submitted that the vehicle has not been repaired so far and still lying. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the surveyor’s report to award compensation to the damages   caused to vehicle. Since,  there is no fault,  the entire impugned order  should be  set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

9.             Learned counsel for respondent submitted that  due to sheer negligence  of OP No.1 , the vehicle has remained without any repair. According to him no payment was made by the OP No.1 towards compensation under policy and for that he is not able to pay the money.  He also submitted that  the financer  has also  to be paid the money  towards the loan amount. Since, the Op No.1 has not settled the claim, there is deficiency in service on their part. He supports the impugned order.

10.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

 11.                       It is not in dispute that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident  and the insurer was informed.  It is not in dispute that the vehicle  has lying in the garage of the Op and the estimate was submitted. But  the Op No.1  submitted that they have deputed the surveyor but due to non-submission of documents they have  settled the claim as no claim. At the same time  they admit that the estimate of Op No.4  has been received by them for Rs.23,790/-.Even  if the documents are  not submitted, but sitting over the claim is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  However,  the complainant equally has got negligence for having not  repaired the vehicle but  led to more damage  from  time to time. The estimate  of  the vehicle is  not the bill for the vehicle paid by the complainant so as to make the reimbursement by the insurer. However, law being settled that the surveyor’s report  is considered as evidence for computation of loss of the vehicle, we go through same and find that the surveyor has computed  loss at Rs.13,100/- which should be payable  by the OP No.1 to the complainant.

12.                   In view of aforesaid analysis,  while  confirming  the finding of the learned District forum, we hereby modified the impugned order  by directing OP  No.1 to pay Rs.13,100/-  to the complainant within a period of 30 days from today, failing which it will carry interest  @ 9 %  per from date of impugned order  till date of payment. Rest of impugned order will remain unaltered. So far payment of compensation is concerned, the said question does not arose when we direct for payment of insurance compensation  but for the   litigation  cost the  impugned order would be remain being enhanced to Rs.5000/-.

                  The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                  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.