The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to support claims of full and final settlement and the assessment of compensation in consumer protection cases.

Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President:- Shri Ratish Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the impugned order dated 10.1.2005 in Complaint No. 944/99 passed by the District Forum, Shimla is not sustainable in any situation, whatsoever. As according to him, respondent as well as his cousin Shri Naveen Gupta had consented for total loss of Car No. HP-03-3340 at Rs. 1,45,000/-. Annexure R.4 is a copy of letter purported to have been received from the respondent by the Divisional Manager of the appellant at Mandi and Annexure R.5 is a consent letter purported to have been given by Naveen Gupta on 6.8.1999 to that effect. Annexure R.7 is the discharge voucher. It is in the sum of Rs. 1,44,000/-. This amount was received by the Attorney of the respondent, according to Mr. Sharma, in full and final settlement of all claims present or future regarding vehicle in question accident of which occurred on 11.7.1999. We are taking note of only these facts being relevant for deciding this appeal. Mr. Sharma forcefully urged that after having received a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim in question, complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum below. It not only fell into error in entertaining the same, but also in passing the impugned award. With a view to support the plea of full and final settlement vide Annexure R.7, he also placed reliance on the affidavit of Shri G.S. Chandel, who was working as Senior Assistant in the Shimla Branch office. Further, according to Shri Sharma, Surveyor Mohinder Kumar Sharma has also filed affidavit alongwith his Survey report as Annexure M.1/1 to M.1/5. Cumulative effect of all these documents according to him is that the respondent having consented and then having received the amount, this appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order set aside. All these pleas have been controverted by Shri Verma on behalf of the respondent, who submitted that in Annexure R.7 subject to our rights was mentioned by his client which was unauthorisedly scored off and averments to the contrary made in the affidavit of Shri G.S. Chandel, Senior Assistant of the appellant are factually incorrect.

2. Great emphasis was laid by Shri Sharma on the report of Surveyor annexure M.1/1 to M.1/5 attached with his (Surveyors) affidavit. Its perusal shows that he had assessed the compensation on three modes, one is on repair basis. According to his assessment, loss on report basis minus salvage works out to Rs.1,09,912.25P. Total loss on present marked value basis was worked out on the basis of average market value of 1998 model vehicle which has run 6200 K.M. after deducting Rs. 50,000/- as salvage value with R/C, at Rs.95,000/-. Finally he had suggested to the Insurance Company as under:- "Thus from above it is clear that if loss is settled on Market Value basis for Rs.1,45,000/- as Total loss of the vehicle is economical for insurer and insured both hence recommended"

3. So far this recommendation of the Surveyor to settle the matter at Rs.1,45,000/- on total loss basis is concerned, this was consented to vide Annexures R.4 and R.5 per Mr. Sharma. A perusal of both these documents clearly suggests that there is no mention of return of salvage as was urged by him during the course of hearing. Admittedly this consented amount has not been paid by the appellants. Therefore, the loss assessed at Rs. 1,45,000/- by the Surveyor was not accepted by the appellants when it only paid Rs. 1,44,000/- vide Annexure R.7. In view of this factual position, we are of the view that the respondent rightly could maintain the complaint in which impugned order has been passed. Admittedly, vehicle was insured on Insureds Estimated Value (I.E.V.) in the sum of Rs.2,02,000/-. Its year of manufacturer was 1998 and insurance policy was issued on 24.7.1998. Accident had taken place on 11.7.1999 i.e. within one year of its purchase. As per Surveyors report, it had covered about 6200 kms. Only.