(1.) AGGRIEVED by the common order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CD. Appeal No. 100 of 2001 and 329 of 2001; the original complainant has approached this Commission with the present petition purportedly under Section 21 -B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeals before the State Commission were filed by the parties aggrieved by the order of the District Forum holding the said order as a cryptic order, the State Commission allowed the appeals and dismissed the complaint.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Sudhansu Palo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint, are amply noted in the orders of the fora below but the dispute raised in the complaint was in regard to the non -settlement of the insurance claim in respect of an insured vehicle, the vehicle having been seized by the financer. On 03.5.2012, this Commission after hearing the counsel for the parties made the following order:
(3.) IN compliance of the said order the insurance company has filed the survey report of Er. Biswajit Kanungo surveyor and loss assessor dated 05.1.1998. We have carefully perused the same. As per the summary of assessment, the surveyor had assessed the net loss at Rs. 15,515.12 as against the claimed amount of Rs. 90,400/ -. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if this assessment of loss is accepted on its face value, there has been undue delay in settling the claim of the complainant as a result of which the complainant has suffered loss and injury firstly due to the payment of the road tax and then pecuniary loss towards interest etc. Mr. Mohan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company fairly states that accepting the net assessment as assessed by the surveyor, this Court may decide the amount of compensation either by way of interest or otherwise.