JUDGEMENT 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 03-09-2002 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the claim of the complainant, M/s L.V. Meat Exchangers was allowed for a sum of Rs. 57,1 091 - along with interest. 2. The complainant has booked certain goods. It reached, but it was damaged. There was insurance against the damage as well. It is said that the damage was due to bad road. The opposite party filed a written statement and alleged that there was no proper packing and due to jerks and jolts, in the opinion of the surveyor, 39 tubes were pressed and damaged. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company because the claim of the claimant was rightly repudiated. 3. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned Forum allowed the complaint against which order, the appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The damage is admitted. It is said that packing was not proper, but the surveyor, himself, says in the last line of his report that the packing was in conventional and customary manner in ideal conditions. While booking and Insurance, itself, had the packing been defective, they should not have accepted the consignment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the damage was caused due to defective packing. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, repudiation letter was sent well within time and there is no deficiency in service. The repudiation is on the ground that the accident is not proved. There is no question of accident. There was no accident at all. It was due to jerks and jolts in the road against which also the insurance was made. Regarding packing, we have already said. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that interest should be from the date of judgment and not from the date of the booking. The interest has been awarded in this case from the date of repudiation. The loss of the complainant was there from the very date on which his compensation was not awarded. Therefore, he should get interest from that date alone. The rate of interest is also not on the higher side. We do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. ORDER 6. The loss of the complainant was there from the very date on which his compensation was not awarded. Therefore, he should get interest from that date alone. The rate of interest is also not on the higher side. We do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. ORDER 6. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. ---- ~_, .T'" nn,..,