D.P.S. Choudhary, President:
1. O.P. (New India Assurance Company) is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 6.9.1995 passed by District Forum, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 102/1993 by which the Forum has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 52,316/- with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of payment and further allowed a compensation of Rs. 500/- for mental agony.
2. The appeal was heard ex parte, as the respondent did not appear in spite of the notice.
3. The brief fact of the case is that complainant filed the case stating therein that he is owner of Tata Delux Bus registration No. BHK-9448 which was insured with the appellant-O.P. for the period 3.6.1992 to 2.6.1993. The aforesaid bus met with an accident in the night of 1.10.1992 near Jalalgarh Police Station and station diary entry No. 6 dated 1.10.1992 was entered in the Police Station on the information given by the local Choukidar. On 8.10.1992 the appellant was informed about the accident and then the complainant filled up claim form and filed before the Insurance Company. A Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who went to the spot, investigated the vehicle in question, and submitted his assessment report dated 16.10.1992. The Surveyor estimated the loss for Rs. 54,600/- only. The complainant on 12.10.1992 submitted the estimated cost of repair. The Insurance Company did not accept the Surveyors report as it was found to be inflated and having some illegality. The report was submitted without any notice or knowledge to the appellant-Insurance Company and a supplementary estimate of Rs. 3,000/- was included in the report. On this ground, the appellant did not accept the Surveyors report. The contention of the appellant was that cash memo and estimated cost of repairing filed on behalf of the complainant are not genuine because they have not been filed along with affidavit. It is further case of the appellant that Insurance Company carefully considered the details of the papers concerning the expenditure and assessed the loss to Rs. 36,613/- only. The complainant did not submit the loss voucher after signature in spite of reminders. Therefore, there was no deficiency and laches on the part of the Insurance Company. The complainant did not accept the settled amount and made a claim of Rs. 64,600/-, which was not acceptable to the Insurance Company.
4. The District Forum after considering the case of both the parties accepted the Surveyors report and directed the Insurance Company for payment of Rs. 52,316/- and also found that there was delay on the part of the Insurance Company in making payment, hence allowed interest @ 18% and the compensation of Rs. 500/- as detailed above.
5. The main contention of the appellant before us is that the District Forum has not assigned any valid reason for accepting the Surveyors report and without considering the objection of the appellant-Insurance Company directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount as assessed by the Surveyor. The Insurance Company has considered the claim of the complainant in detail and has offered the amount of Rs. 36,613/-, which was not accepted by the insured, which the Insurance Company is still ready to pay. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company and award of interest @ 18% is arbitrary and which should not have been allowed against the Insurance Company.
6. We have gone through the impugned order of the District Forum and the memo of appeal and also considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. There is no dispute with regard to any fact in the matter. The complainants vehicle was insured with the appellant and during the period of insurance in the night of 1.10.1992 the bus met with an accident. The local police was informed and Insurance Company was informed on 8.10.1992. The complainant filled up the claim form and sent it to the Insurance Company with the relevant papers. A Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who submitted the report. The complainant further submitted the cash memo and bills for the repair of the vehicle.
7. The main contention of the appellant before us is that Surveyors report is not correct. It is in collusion with the complainant. The Insurance Company was not satisfied with the report and thereafter another Surveyor was appointed who submitted different report on 16.3.1993. The District Forum in his detail order has held that there was no occasion for appointment of second Surveyor nor the Insurance Company has produced the report of the second Surveyor to show that what was the amount assessed by the second Surveyor with regard to the loss of the vehicle. The District Forum accepted the report of the first Surveyor and directed the Insurance Company to pay that amount along with interest.
8. The Insurance Company has not been able to give us any valid reason for the appointment of second Surveyor nor has assigned any legal reason for not accepting the report of the first Surveyor. Therefore, we are of the view that District Forum has rightly accepted the report of the first Surveyor and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount as assessed by the first Surveyor. We are of the view that Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount as assessed by the first Surveyor, i.e., Rs. 52,316/- only. The alleged occurrence took place in the night of 1.10.1992. The Insurance Company was informed about the accident on 8.10.1992. The Surveyor submitted the report on 16.10.1992 within eight days of the information lodged with the Insurance Company by the complainant but this claim amount was not paid to the complainant till the date of filing of the complaint which was filed in the year 1993. As per contention of the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company appointed second Surveyor who submitted the report on 5.3.1993 after about five months of information of occurrence by the complainant. These facts proved beyond doubt that Insurance Company wrongly and illegally appointed the second Surveyor and did not accept the report of first Surveyor and there was considerable delay of about five months in appointment of the second Surveyor. This amounts to deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company. Therefore, we are of the view that order of the District Forum directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount as assessed by the first Surveyor to the tune of Rs. 52,316/- is correct and it does not require our interference. However, we agree with this contention of the Insurance Company that rate of interest @ 18% is on higher side. After considering the entire fact we reduce this rate to 9% per annum from 1st May, 1993 as ordered by the District Forum till the date of payment. Since interest has been allowed on the amount of claim it would not be proper to allow any further amount towards compensation because that will amount to double punishment. Therefore, the amount of compensation of Rs. 500/- as ordered by the District Forum is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost. With the modification in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.