The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a consumer to compensation for deficient service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal filed by the O.Ps. of Complaint Case No. 350 of 2002 filed by the respondent/complainant Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma against judgment and order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as District Forum) allowing the complaint and directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 17,850/- + Rs. 18,000/- totalling Rs. 35,850/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 21.5.2002 till its payment along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation.

2. The respondent/complainant got his computer insured with M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) for Rs. 25,000/- vide cover note No. 578057 dated 10.4.2000. Prior to the issuance of Insurance policy, an investigation of the computer aforesaid had been done and pre-investigation report was prepared by the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, the appellant. The said computer was damaged on or about 5.1.2001 due to fluctuation of electric energy. This was duly intimated to the appellant - Insurance Company vide letter dated 5.1.2001 (copy Annexure C-3). The estimate of repairs (C-3/A) and (C-3/B) were also annexed with the letter. Shri Satwinder Singh was appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss of damage. The Surveyor investigated the computer system and signed all the defective components thereof and on the basis of the report of the Surveyor, the Insurance Company passed a claim for Rs. 1,469/- although actual insurance claim submitted by the complainant to the O.Ps. was for Rs. 17,100/- + Rs. 750/- = Rs. 17,850/-.

3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, the respondent/complainant served legal notice dated 8.10.2001 (C-1), which was, however, dated 8.10.2001, which was, however, not settled and this also, it is alleged, amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant prayed that O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs. 17,850/- with interest @ 18% per annum from January 2001 till its realization and be further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as rent paid for hired computer being alternative arrangement along with future rent @ 1,000/- per month till the case is settled and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed as damages on account of mental agony, harassment, loss and injury suffered due to the negligence and deficient services rendered by the O.Ps. The costs of complaint was also claimed.

4. The O.Ps. contested the complaint case and challenged the maintainability of the complaint case. It was alleged that the complainant was not a consumer and had no locus standi to file the complaint. The plea of estoppel was also taken. It was urged that the dispute may be referred to the Arbitrator under Arbitration clause contained in the policy of insurance. Next, it was urged that the case involved complicated questions of law and facts and the complainant be relegated to his remedy of approaching a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It was, however, not disputed that the claim was settled by the appellant Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 1,469/-. It was not denied that in the event of partial loss, it is the duty of the O.P. to get the damaged parts repaired so that the computer may be in the same condition in which it was before the damage had been caused. But such a situation would arise only when the claim of the complainant was genuine. Reliance was placed by the appellant on the survey report (Annexure R-2). It was categorically denied that there was any contradiction in Surveyor’s report and letter (C-4) of the appellant on one hand and the pre-investigation report on the other hand on the basis of which the policy of insurance was issued.

5. Parties led evidence in the shape of their affidavits and filed documentary evidence.

6. The District Forum referred to the affidavit of Shri N.K. Nagal, Sr. Divisional Manager and discusse