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

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-15K-7408 has purchased insurance policy from the OP for covering the period from 27.11.2006 to 26.11.2007. During currency of the policy the vehicle met accident on 30.3.2007 at Badarama Ghati in Sambalpur district. Thereafter, police was informed and the insurer was also informed. OP deputed the surveyor and finally sent a discharge voucher of Rs. 2,95,000/- for settlement of the claim on 20.2.2008. Complainant did not agree to the same claiming more amount of repair. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

4.      OP appeared and filed written version stating that  they have deputed the surveyor and loss assessor who has inspected the vehicle on 27.4.2007 and 28.4.2007 and calculated the loss at Rs.4,40,000/- but the insurance company was liable to pay only Rs.2,95,000/- i.e. 75% of the said amount. It was offered but the complainant did not receive the same. So, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

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

“xxx   xxx   xxx

The case of the complainant is allowed. We direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,40,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs forty thousand) towards full and final settlement of the claim within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 7(seven) per cent will be charged from the date of order till payment by the OP. The OP is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the complainant towards cost of this proceeding within the above stipulated period.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by passing the impugned order because the surveyor’s report by computing the loss has been re-verified by the office of the OP and they further deducted amount from the labour charges and computed the loss at Rs.2,95,000/- which was not accepted by the learned District Forum. According to him the surveyor has not deducted from the labour charges as per the norms and that is why the computation of loss was not proper. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

8.      It is admitted fact that during currency of the insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant met accident and the surveyor has already computed the loss. The only question arises whether the complainant is entitled to claim of Rs.4,40,000/- or Rs.2,95,000/-.It is settled in law that the surveyor’s report should be the basis of computation of loss. The office of the OP has raised objection  but it has no basis to challenge the report of the surveyor who has inspected the vehicle and computed the loss after going through the documents submitted by the complainant. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the claim should be settled at Rs.4,40,000/- as found by the surveyor. Same amount has been already arrived by the learned District Forum. Therefore, we are in full agreement with the finding of the learned District Forum. There is nothing to interfere with it. It is confirmed.

9.      Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

        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.