Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President—Both these appeals, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the order dated 3.2.1999 in Complaint No. 289/1997 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’ for short); hence they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The complainant (appellant in appeal No. 52/2003) is a registered Co-op. Society and is the owner of Tata truck bearing registration No. MP26C-2944. It was comprehensively insured with the O.P./appellant of appeal No. 58/2003. It is not in dispute that the truck met with an accident on 27.12.1996 and was damaged during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant reported the matter to the Police on 27.12.1996 and also intimated the Insurance Company about it on 28.12.1996.

3. According to the complainant, the insurer appointed Surveyor Gambhir who visited the spot on 28.12.1996. Thereafter Surveyor Anil Verma was appointed by the Insurance Company who also assessed the damage on 14.1.1997. Further averments in the complaint were that the Insurer failed to settle the claim, and after long correspondence by the complainant he was ultimately intimated by Insurer’s letter dated 19.6.1997, that an amount of Rs. 33,722/- was payable to the complainant. The complainant was not satisfied with the amount offered by the Insurer. According to the complainant, loss incurred by him was to the extent of Rs. 4,09,941/-. It was also alleged by the complainant that Surveyor Anil Verma who had assessed the loss in fact demanded bribe from him for properly assessing the actual damage, which the complainant refused to pay. Therefore, the said Surveyor under-assessed the loss.

4. The complaint was resisted by the Insurer. It was denied that Surveyor demanded any bribe from the complainant. It was also averred by the Insurer that Surveyor Anil Verma had obtained consent of the complainant regarding the loss assessed by him. It was further averred by the Insurer that despite demand, the complainant failed to produce the documents including the bills, etc. showing the actual expenditure incurred in the repair of the truck. Hence, the amount assessed by the Surveyor was offered to the complainant.

5. District Forum in the impugned order has directed that Insurer shall pay Rs. 33,722/- as assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant.

6. In appeal No. 52/2003 the complainant assailed the quantum of compensation awarded to it. It was urged on behalf of the complainant that expenses incurred in the repairs were much more and the complainant was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 4,09,941 as per estimate submitted by it. It was also submitted that there was under assessment of loss by the Surveyor, as his demand of bribe was not met, by the complainant.

7. As against the above, the learned Counsel for the appellant of appeal No. 58/2003 submitted that the interest awarded by the District Forum @ 18% is very high and deserves to be reduced.

8. The first question that arises for consideration is : as to whether compensation awarded by the District Forum is proper?

9. It may be noticed in the above context that Sureyor Anil Verma had assessed the loss at Rs. 33,722/- as per his report dated 25.3.1997. He has given the details of parts which required repairing or change and the labour charges and concluded that the amount payable to the complainant was Rs. 33,772/-. The complainant’s stand was that it was required to spend Rs. 4,09,941/-. However, it may be noticed in the above context that in Para 16 of the complaint and in the prayer clause it has been stated by the complainant that Rs. 3,20,000/- were spent by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate the averments as above, regarding actual expenditure incurred in the repair of the vehicle. Only an estimate dated 28.12.1996 by one R.S. Enterprises has been placed in the