Heard learned counsel for  the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

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   was owner of  truck bearing No.OR-04A-1372   and had purchased the policy for the said truck. It is alleged inter-alia that on 21.12.2002  while the vehicle was running it met accident. Thereafter the police and insurer were informed. Surveyor did not pay attention to the installment dues. However, since the exact amount are not available, the complaint case was filed.

4.            The  OP filed written version stating that they have rightly repudiated the claim  because on 21.12.2002 the vehicle of the complainant faced accident  due to negligence of the driver and as such there is no fault lies with the OP. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ That, the complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opp.Party with cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid by the Opp.Party to the complainant. The Opp.Party-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.57,600/- to the complainant towards the damage of the truck within a period of two months from the date of the order.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that    they have engaged the surveyor who visited the spot and accordingly computed the loss   which was paid to the complainant but the complainant did not agree to it. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the fact and law involved in this case. Since,  the impugned order is not sustainable in law, the same should be  set-aside 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  during  currency of the policy, the vehicle met accident the surveyor  has computed the loss by making payment to the complainant but the complainant received the amount   with objection. We have gone through the surveyor’s report and found that  he has computed the loss by deducting the amount towards labour charges, spare parts etc. The reason is not mentioned. Since, the reason is not mentioned, we are of the view that the surveyor  has not computed the loss correctly. When the money claimed by the complainant is not approved and the Op sat over the matter by only obtaining  signature of the complainant in the voucher  which is of  course on protest,  we are of the view that there is deficiency in service  proved by the complainant. So, we hereby allowed to pay  Rs.69,000/-  by the appellant. Therefore, while confirming the impugned order, we modified the impugned order  by directing the appellant to pay Rs.69,000/-  with regard to computation of loss, there is no any remarks. However, para-6 of the impugned order is as follows:-

    ‘The case of the Opp.Party is that the complainant did not make any claim of her damaged money after the accident nor made the claim through  the Consumer Forum within two years of accident. The answer  is very simple in view of the documents produced on behalf of the Opp.Party. From the Ext. A & A/1, it is seen that the accident took place on 20.12.02 and the claim case was started  in the  year 2003 bearing claim case No.31/164/03. Ext.A/2 is the Surveyor’s report, who after due investigation of the case assessed the damage to the following effect that Rs.21,000/- towards  the repairer’s estimate of labour under several items and Rs.6,460/- for assessed parts with  5 per cent depreciation, Rs.780/- assessed parts with 50 per cent depreciation, Rs.29,.340/- towards assessed parts without depreciation. So, in total Rs.57,600/- and  this was finalized by 30.09.03 which is payable to the complainant. But that has not been done. The argument of the Opp.Party that the Insurance Company was not intimated about the accident of the insured truck by the complainant can not be accepted,rather  it is proved that after due intimation the Opp.Party-Insurance Company has done the needful  in making the assessment of the damage by Surveyor but neglected in his duty in not giving the damaged price to the complainant within reasonable period which amounts to deficiency of service.”

9.                 With  regard to discussion of the impugned order, we found that there is no error in the impugned order. Therefore, we also  award Rs.57,600/- payable  by the OP to the complainant besides cost of Rs.1000/- payable by the OP to the complainant.   If all the payments are not made within 45 days from today the entire payment will be payable with interest @ 9 % per annum from date of impugned order till date of payment. It is made clear  that Rs.30,340/- has been already paid to  the complainant in the execution proceeding by the OP to the complainant. However, rest of the amount would be paid within 45 days from today as ordered above.  

                        The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 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.