- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner-Insurance Company is aggrieved against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 11th September, 2003 passed in Appeal No. 351 of 2003, whereby the State Commission dismissed the writ petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gumla in Case No. 45 of 1995.
(2.) As per the brief facts of the case, the insured bus suffered one accident for which there was a coverage. The Insured case was that because of that accident, body of the bus got damaged and it was totally repaired by incurring cost of Rs. 1,74,518.89. Against this, both the authorities have allowed claim of the insured to the tune of Rs. 1,24,000/-.
(3.) The writ petitioner's contention is that twice surveyors were appointed and they gave their assessment. One survey was conducted of the site where accident occurred and thereafter a regular survey or was appointed, who visited the place where the bus of the insured was to be repaired and there he obtained the photographs of the bus. After detailed fact finding, the surveyor reached to the conclusion that the loss is of Rs. 7,000/- only.;