IMPORTANT POINT
Surveyor Report - the report of the surveyor is an important piece of document and it cannot be disbelieved unless there is any cogent and convincing reason to do so and the assessment made by the surveyor should be given proper weightage unless and until there are contrary reasons to disregard the same.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II—This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 81 of 2014 styled as Sh. Shiv Charan Vs. National Insurance Co. and Another, whereby and wherein the learned District Commission has allowed the complaint.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant – respondent (in short “complainant”) has filed the complaint before the District Commission to claim a compensation of Rs. 4,30,000/- on account of damages of vehicle in question “Tata Indigo No. UK08-TA-2763” alongwith Rs. 250/- per day towards rent for parking charges, Rs. 4,000/- as towing charges and Rs. 500/- per day as loss of income and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation alongwith Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment, i.e. a total sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-. In the complaint, it was averred that vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party – appellant (in short “insurance company”) for the period commencing from 08.10.2012 to 07.10.2013. The intimation about the accident on 23.07.2013 was given to the police as well as insurance company and the vehicle in question was taken to the company after towing it from the place of occurrence, but inspite of several requests and legal notice, the company has not given his claim – insured amount, hence, the complaint was filed.

3. The opposite party – insurance company has averred in its written statement that the complainant has prayed for repair work of the vehicle in question, but later on, the surveyor assessed the loss of the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs. 1,92,692.50ps., but in order to make undue influence and pressure on the insurance company, the claim on wrong fact was submitted before the Commission. It is further pleaded that the insurance company contested the claim alleging that the insurance company was always ready and willing to settle the claim of the complainant as per the loss assessed by the surveyor of the company. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the record, the learned District Commission passed the impugned judgment on 21.07.2014 wherein it is held as under:—

“(Matter in Other Language)”

5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the appellant has preferred the present appeal alleging that the impugned judgment and order is against the law, facts and merits of the case and Commission below has failed to appreciate the fact that upon intimation of the said accident given by the complainant on 23.07.2013, the insurance company had immediately appointed a spot surveyor Sh. Praveer Kumar Sikhola, who submitted his spot survey report on 01.08.2013; upon submission of the report, the appellant has appointed Sh. Pawan Kumar for final survey, who also submitted his report on 06.10.2013, as such there was no deficiency in services by the insurance company by processing the claim of the complainant. It is further averred that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that the final surveyor had assessed the claim of the complainant on repair / replacement basis for a sum of Rs. 3,31,444.65ps. on total loss basis for a sum of Rs. 4,29,000/- and on total loss net of salvage basis for a sum of Rs. 3,09,000/- and the complainant was duly informed by the insurance company vide letter dated 31.01.2014 to get his vehicle repaired, so that the claim could be settled as per the assessment by the surveyor. But the complainant refused to repair his vehicle and kept on delaying the said repair on one ground or another. It is further pleaded in the ap