JUDGMENT 1. These are two connected appeals arising out of judgment and order dated 30.1. 2003 passed by District Forum, Tehri Garhwal whereby a claim of Rs. 3,25,000/- has been allowed to the complainant. 2. According to the appeal of the Insurance Company, this claim should not have been allowed. It should have been maximum for Rs. 2,13,500/-. Therefore, the Insurance Company filed the appeal. According to the complainant, the amount of compensation should have been Rs. 4,80,000/ -. The complainant was not satisfied with Rs. 3,25,000/-, therefore, he preferred the appeal 3. Since, both the appeals arise out of one insurance and one judgment & order, therefore, both the appeals have been taken together for disposal. A copy of the judgment shall be placed separately in the records of both the files. 4. According to the complainant, he is the owner of the vehicle MP 20G 5378, which was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. It met with an accident on 4.8.2001 at Akhori, Ghansali Road. The complainant lodged the FIR with the local Patwari on 6.8.2001. On technical examination on 20.8.2001 the Company found that the case was of total loss. The surveyor of the Company inspected on the spot and found that this was a case of total loss and he assessed the salvage value for Rs 1,10,000/- and recommended the claim for Rs. 3,25,000/-. Thus the claimant is entitled for Rs. 4,35,000/. but after deducting the salvage value the Company was ready to pay only Rs. 2,13,500/-. Hence, the Claim Petition. 5. The opposite party filed Written Statement and admitted the complainant to be the owner of the vehicle. Insurance was also admitted and admitted that after getting the information of accident, Shri R.R. Sharma was appointed to inquire and again Shri B.B. Singhal & Company was appointed surveyor to assess the loss. In their report dated 17.12.2001, the surveyor recommended a claim of Rs. 2,13,500/-. It was informed to the complainant, but the complainant was not ready to take that. He is not entitled to get any claim better than this. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Forum allowed the claim for recovery of Rs. 3,25,000/-. Being aggrieved by that order, both the parties have filed their separate appeals. 6. 2,13,500/-. It was informed to the complainant, but the complainant was not ready to take that. He is not entitled to get any claim better than this. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Forum allowed the claim for recovery of Rs. 3,25,000/-. Being aggrieved by that order, both the parties have filed their separate appeals. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records: According to the learned Forum, the insurance value of the vehicle is Rs. 4,80,000/- and the loss value is Rs. 3,25,000/-. Therefore, without deducting the price of the salvage, the learned Forum allowed the compensation for Rs. 3,25,000/-. 7. According to National Insurance Co., hereinafter, called the appellant, a surveyor was appointed and according to the Company, this report of the surveyor is Brahm Waak (Gospel Truth), it should not be disputed. According to the surveyor, the original estimate of the vehicle is of Rs. 4,36,500/-. The vehicle was empty at the time of accident and after doing calculations and totalling price of each part, the valuation was given. He has also reported about the injury and recommended for Rs. 3,25,000/- and deducting the price of the salvage, recommended for Rs. 2,15,000/-. In the grounds of appeal, a new case was taken by the claimant in his appeal that no salvage could be retrieved because the Insurance Company did not take any action for retrieval of the salvage and also did not agree to the cost of retrieval. Obviously, the retrieval was of no value as the cost of retrieval would exceed the retrieval value of the salvage. However, the Insurance Company did not file any objection to this Memorandum and did not say in any objection that it could have been retrieved. In the report of the surveyor, also, it is nowhere written that any effort was made for the retrieval or not. Actually, the expenses of retrieval also are to be paid by the Insurance Company and they are entitled to the salvage of the vehicle, therefore, every effort for retrieval should have been made by the Insurance Company and not by the complainant. Actually, the expenses of retrieval also are to be paid by the Insurance Company and they are entitled to the salvage of the vehicle, therefore, every effort for retrieval should have been made by the Insurance Company and not by the complainant. It is said that the salvage is still lying there where the accident took place and if the Insurance Company is interested in the salvage and if it can, it may retrieve the salvage, the complainant will not have any objection to that. but, at any rate, if the salvage could not be retrieved, it may be due to the mistake of either of the parties. The claimant is not to suffer, particularly, when he has got the vehicle insured for Rs. 4,80,000/. In these circumstances, the amount as granted by the learned Forum is a proper and the Insurance Company has got no right to deduct the value of the salvage from the total cost assessed. 8. Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount or the present cost of the vehicle. We agree with the finding of the learned Forum that whichever of the two is lesser, shall be paid to the complainant. It is not open to the complainant to get the vehicle insured for Rs. 8 lacs even if the price is for Rs. 4 lacs. In the complaint or anywhere, the original price of the vehicle has not been given and merely by lying that it was of Rs. 7 lacs and more on the date of the accident, the complainant will not get that amount. According to the complainant, 25% should have been deducted, but from which amount, has not been explained. It is a necessarily from the insurance value if the market value is lesser. In these circumstances, the claim allowed by the learned Forum is perfectly correct and does not call for any interference. 9. As regards the appeal of the complainant, the judgment was passed by the learned Forum on 30.1.2003. The Insurance Company filed the appeal on 3.3.2003 and notices were issued for 10.4.2003. It appears that after the claimant received the notice on 10.4.2003, itself, he preferred to file this appeal claiming that he was ill. He may have been ill. He has not to appear in the commission. He could have sent anybody to file the appeal and affidavit. It appears that after the claimant received the notice on 10.4.2003, itself, he preferred to file this appeal claiming that he was ill. He may have been ill. He has not to appear in the commission. He could have sent anybody to file the appeal and affidavit. The grounds of appeal could have been signed by the learned counsel for the complainant, but, such an inordinate delay appears only to counter-blast the appeal of the Insurance Company otherwise the complainant was not in any mood to file his appeal. His appeal is barred by time and is to be rejected merely on this ground. However, the finding above, will show that on merits, as well, this appeal has got no force. However, the claimant did not get and should be allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order of the learned Forum till the date of actual payment. Both the appeals are to be dismissed. ORDER Both the appeals are, hereby, dismissed. However, the claimants shall get interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of award given by the learned Forum till the date of actual payment. Cost of appeals shall be easy.