The insurance company is obligated to pay the entire claim of the complainant when the vehicle is comprehensively insured at the time of the accident.

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an appeal against the order dated 12.12.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.

2. Brief facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent No. 1-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was the owner of a jeep. Earlier the said vehicle was financed and was hypothecated by respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 1). The complainant had paid the entire loan amount to the Bank-opposite party No. 1 and nothing remained due to him qua loan amount. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant (opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 2) and had paid the premium for the same. The said policy covered the entire risk of the vehicle. On 11.8.1999 the said vehicle met with an accident, which caused serious damage to the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by the complainant who was the holder of a valid driving licence. The complainant immediately after the accident lodged the claim to opposite party No. 2, who appointed the Surveyor. The Surveyor estimated the loss to the tune of Rs. 92,952/-. But later on opposite party No. 2 had reduced the loss without assigning any reason. This was the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2, according to the complainant. A prayer was made in the complaint that the complainant may be granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 92,952/- as per the survey report and Rs. 20,000/- for harassment, agony and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

3. In the written reply filed by opposite party No. 1, they have stated that they had no role to play in this complaint as the complainant did not owe any amount towards them and the dispute was between the complainant and opposite party No. 2.

4. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has taken the preliminary objections that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complaint was filed by S. Paramjit Singh, who was not the holder of the policy in question. The factual position was admitted that the jeep was insured with opposite party No. 2. However, it was denied that the Surveyor had assessed the amount of loss as Rs. 92,952/-. Actually the Surveyor assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 41,401.71p according to the opposite party No. 2. It was then stated in the reply that there was no merit in the complaint and the same was liable to be dismissed.

5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, the District Forum allowed the complaint.

Hence this appeal.

6. The relevant portion of the order of the District Forum vide which the complaint was allowed reads as under:

“5. At the time of arguments the opposite party No. 2 presented a cheque bearing No. 656942 amounting to Rs. 41,402/-, which was accepted by the complainant under protest being less when the actual expenditure incurred by him towards the repair of the vehicle. Only the question remains to be whether the complainant has been adequately compensated or he had been paid less as alleged by him. Universal Motors, Amritsar who carried out the repair of the vehicle vide its report Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 had assessed the loss to Rs. 92,952/- whereas the Surveyor in his report Ex. R5 has assessed the loss as Rs. 41,401.71p. The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the Surveyor was not justified in not including the cost of body shell which comes to Rs. 44,893.62p. on the ground that the same can be repaired whereas the Universal Motors, Amritsar had come to the conclusion that the shell cannot be repaired and changed the body shell. It is further argued that the Surveyor report should not be made the basis of the claim and more reliance should be placed on the agency who actually had carried out the repair. In this context he has referred to III (1997) CPJ 143, Aleyamma Verghese v. T