ORDER

This Revision Petition No. 1196 of 2021 challenges the order of Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (‘State Commission’) dated 30.08.2019, vide which, the learned State Commission disposed of the Appeal No.49/2018 filed by the Insurance Company and the Appeal No.221/2018 filed by the Petitioner/Complainant by modifying the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Keonjhar (‘District Forum’) order dated 03.01.2018 in C.C. No.36/2016 and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.90,000/- to the insured towards settlement of the claim and affirming the rest part of the order of the District Forum.

2. As per report of the Registry, there is 754 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA No.10785 of 2021, the Revision Petition is treated to have been filed within limitation.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle insured with the OPs from 29.04.2013 to 28.04.2014. The vehicle met with an accident on 13.03.2014 during the subsistence of the policy. He informed the OPs about the accident, who deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor conducted the assessment in his absence and the final survey was completed on 22.03.2014, and the claim was settled for Rs.1,80,000/, an amount the Complainant alleged to be arbitrary. He approached the Insurance Ombudsman, who observed that the claim form, signature, and consent submitted were fabricated. The Ombudsman ordered a reassessment, which the OPs failed to comply with. He sought direction to the OPs to settle the claim based on the Insured Declared Value (IDV), deducting the amount already paid, along with compensation and costs.

4. The OPs contended that the Complainant received the amount as full and final settlement by executing a discharge voucher and asserted that his acceptance of the settlement amount precludes any further claims and therefore, pray for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The District Forum, vide order dated 03.01.2018, allowed the complaint and directed the OP as under:

“The O.Ps. are hereby liable to pay a sum of (Rs.3,47,839 -Rs.1,80,000) i.e. Rs.1,67,839/- (one lakh sixty seven thousand eight hundred & thirty nine only) towards IDV value settlement & along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand only) towards compensation inclusive of cost within 45 days of this order, failing @9% p.annum interest will accrue on same from the date of application till complete realization.”

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OPs filed Appeal No.49/2018. The Complainant also filed Appeal No.221/2018. The learned State Commission vide order dated 30.08.2019 modified the District Forum order dated 03.01.2018 in CC No.36/2016 and OPs were directed to pay Rs.90,000/- to the insured towards settlement of the claim and affirmed the rest of the District Forum order as under:

“7. We heard Mr. G. P. Dutta, learned counsel for appellants- Insurance Company in F.A. no.49 of 2018 and respondents in F.A. no. 221 of 2018. We also heard Mr. R. K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for respondent in F.A. no. 49 of 2018 and appellant in F.A. no.221 of 2018. We also perused the impugned order along with District Forum record.

8. On thorough perusal of materials available on record it has come to light that Ombudsman had observed that settlement made by insurer on the basis of the report of the Loss Assessor suffers from many infirmities. Insurer was, therefore, directed to reassess the loss suffered by insured vehicle.

9. The matter was referred to the ‘Technical Committee’ (Motors) for their opinion on the assessment made by the final Survey Mr. S. K. Sadhu of Jamshedpur. The Committee arrived at the following conclusions:—

“We observed that the loss assessed by the final surveyor is not reasonable and on lower side in respect of assessment spare parts as well as labour charges. It is observed from the photographs taken by him that the body shell has sustained