The insurer is liable to pay compensation for the damage to the vehicle and the court has the authority to assess the compensation amount based on the circumstances of the case.

V.K. Agarwal, President :-

1. In this appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the order Dt.4.2,2006 in complaint No.55/2005, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) has been challenged.

2. It is not in dispute that vehicle No. CG-04-ZD-6343, belonging to the complainant/respondent No.1, was comprehensively insured by the appellant/insurer, covering the risk thereof from 9.6.03 to 8,6.04. The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.11.03 and was damaged. The complainant intimated the appellant/insurer about the accident on 21, 11,03 i.e. after about six days of the incident and also submitted claim form on 15.12.03. The surveyor Sunil Surana was appointed by the appellant insurer, who appears to have visited the premises of the respondent No,2 - Authorised Dealer of the vehicle and submitted his report Dt. 28.3.04 assessing Rs. 11,5311- as the amount payable, on account of damage to the said vehicle, However, the complainant refused to accept the amount, as it was inadequate. According to the complainant Rs.41 ,979/- was spent in repairs of the vehicle. Hence, the said amount with interest and compensation was claimed in the complaint. .

3. The appellant resisted the complaint. According to it there was delay in intimation regarding the accident and it was also averred that the complainant was entitled to get the compensation as per assessment of the surveyor.

4. The District Forum in the impugned order held that, the appellant insurer has committed deficiency in service. However, it was directed by the District Forum that the appellant insurer would assess the loss as per section I of the insurance policy and pay the same with interest @ 9% p.a, as also Rs.2,000/- towards cost.

5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard, Record perused,

6. At the out set it may be stated that though the District Forum held that appellant insurer was deficient in service but it did not specify in the impugned order, the amount of compensation payable to the complainant. The District Forum should have specified the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. However, we find that instead of doing so. The matter has been left open by the District Forum. This is not proper.

7. It was also urged by the learned counsel for appellant that there was delay in intimation of the accident by the complainant. Hence, the surveyor could not inspect the vehicle at the earliest opportunity, However, we find that intimation' was given on 21.11 ,03 i.e. 5 days after the accident while the surveyor inspected the vehicle thereafter in March 2004 i,e, after about 4 months after the intimation was given. Hence, the contention as above has no merit and cannot be accepted.

8. The next question that deserves consideration is, as to whether the complainant is entitled to compensation as assessed by the surveyor or he is entitled to more amount?

9. It may be noted that as per the bills submitted by the complainant/respondent No.1, total expenditure of Rs.41,979/- was spent in repairs. The said bills were issued by the authorized dealer - respondent No,2 Ralas Motors, We have also considered the report of the surveyor which states that certain parts got replaced during repairs were infact not required to be replaced, as a result of the accident. Unfortunately, the surveyor has failed to specify what were those parts which were so replaced, but were infact not required to be replaced as a result of the accident, Similarly though the complainant has claimed labour charges of Rs,23,800/-, while the surveyor has allowed Rs.4,000/-, On the said count, some discount on account of depreciation etc. has also been given by the surveyor as detailed by him in his report dt.28,3,04. Since, the surveyor has not given the details of the aforementioned parts and has also not specified as to why labour charges were drastically reduced by him to Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.23,800/ claimed b