Prof. S.K. Kar, Member—The case of the complainant is that his vehicle No. MP-23 B-3447 met with an accident on 4-11-91 nearer to Sambalpur which was reported to Sambalpur Police Station. The complainant also lodged his claim before the National Insurance Co. Ltd. the opposite party No. 2 in pursuance of the Policy No. 101600/ 6312724. The Opposite Party conducted its enquiry and submitted its reports in favour of the petitioner recommending to settle the claim of the petitioner in view of the loss and damage assessed by the Surveyor and the opposite party No. 1 was bound to settle the claim but no step was taken till 22-10-92 when the lawyer’s letter-cum-notice dated 22.-10-92 was served upon opposite party, that the opposite party No. 2 by its letter dated 5-11-92 informed to the petitioner/complainant that as there were some anomalies in the report of the Surveyor and his subsequent clarification, the report has been referred to an expert—an independent person for his opinion. Further, the opposite party No. 2 by his letter dated 3-12-92 informed the petitioner that as the original loss assessed by the Surveyor was exaggerated, it has prejudiced the petition’s right to claim so the file is closed as no claim. The petitioner has prayed for one lakh as compensation and damages.

2. The objection filed on behalf of the opposite parties inter-alias is that the application is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act in-as-much as there is no deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the said Act. That due to failure to produce the valid driving license of the Driver by the owner the respondent is in dark if the Driver had any valid license at the material point of time. Further, the case of the opposite parties that they appointed two Surveyors who submitted their reports. But due to some anomalies in the report submitted by the final Surveyor namely Mr. G.P. Jhajharia the opposite parties asked for clarification for some points raised in the report but as he failed to do so in spite of their repeated requests the opposite parties had to depend upon expert opinion and appointed Mr. G.K. Jalan who submitted his report observing the loss-assessment conducted by final Surveyor Mr. G.P. Jhajharia has been established to be an exaggerated one which had prejudiced the petitioner’s right to claim. The opposite parties submitted all reports of spot Surveyor as well as final Surveyor and the opinion of the expert marked as ‘A’ to the opposition. The opposite parties further alleged that the petitioner’s claim is not specific one and it is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction in view that final Surveyor’s report is much less than one lakh. The opposite party further contended that the issues involved in the matter cannot be adjudicated other than Civil Court and that Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum cannot give any direction ‘to do or to desist’. It was asserted that petition of complainant is liable to be rejected. Further as regards allegations of the complaint petition opposite parties denied all material allegations and in dealing with the allegation about the report of the Surveyors the opposite parties have alleged that reports of the Surveyors are fradulent ones, as such they had to depend on expert’s opinion and on that basis the opposite parties had repudiated the claim of the complainant and the petition is vague and not at all genuine one and prayed for rejection of the petition of complaint with exemplanary cost.

JUDGMENT

3. The petition of complaint presented before us is poorly drafted and even not corroborated with any documents in support of his case, although in petition of complaint filed in this regard annexures have been referred therein, are not really annexed with the petition. No claim amount is shown in the petition and the statement of claim portion has been kept blank even the petition has not been checked up before filing. The petitioner has only sought for compensation and