ORDER: Oral: Onkar Chand Thakur, Presiding Member: Deriving authority from Section 22-D read with section 29-A, and 2-1 (jj) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto 2002, the President of the Commission having retired on 19.4.2005, and no one having joined as such till today, and also in exercise of power conferred upon us as a judicial Bench constituted by the judicial order of the outgoing President, dated* 18.4.2005, under section 16 (1B) of the said Act. We hereby proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-the Insurance Company, against the impugned order of Ld. Distt. Forum, Shimla, dated 1.9.2003, whereby the appellants have been directed to make payment to the complainant of a sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- with 12% interest from the date of petition and litigation cost of Rs. 2500/-. 3. The complainant purchased a Tata Sume bearing registration No. DL-6CA-8959 in August 1997 and get it insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- from 28.8.1997 to 27.8.1998. The vehicle met with an accident on 31.1.1998 i.e. just within 5 months resulting in a total loss. As usual FIR was lodged with the Police and intimation about the accident was given to the Insurance Company who appointed a surveyer. The Surveyer assessed the loss at Rs. 3,75,000/- (by handing ever the salvage). Since, the complainant had claimed full insured amount i.e. Rs. 4,76,000/- plus compensation for non-settlement of the claim in time and feeling aggrieved by this loss assessment, he filed a complaint before the Ld. Distt. Forum, Shimla which resulted in the impugned order. 4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. The main argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant was that the Forum below had wrongly discarded the Surveyer report vide which Rs. 3,75,000/-was assessed and to which the insured had also given his consent. The Forum has wrongly awarded an exorbitant amount to the complainant without there being any basis for the same. Further the Insurance Company has no other method of assessing the claim except to appoint independent surveyer and in these circumstances his report should not be discarded in this manner 6. We have thoroughly perused the report of Shri Vijay Kumar Beri. Further the Insurance Company has no other method of assessing the claim except to appoint independent surveyer and in these circumstances his report should not be discarded in this manner 6. We have thoroughly perused the report of Shri Vijay Kumar Beri. Surveyer, appointed by the Insurance Company, which is available in the record as Annexure R-III. On page 24 of the report heading "ON TOTAL LOSS BASIS "THE SUM INSURED HAS BEEN MENTIONED as Rs. 4,76,000/- and cost of new Sume DX Model as per invoice proforma No 16820 dated 12.5.98 of M/S Sikand and Co. Solan has been given at Rs. 4,58,074/-. In the next Column the present market value of 1997 model X Sume DX in the local market confirmed from various sources has been given at Rs. 3,75,000. It will be seen that the Surveyer did not take the trouble of mentioning any person from whom he consulted or got his affidavit in this behalf and also whether he was a valuer of status he was holding in the sale of vehicles market. The fact remains that the vehicle was purchased on 20.8.1997 and it met with an accident on 31.1.1998 i.e. just within five months. There is no mention in the report itself, if the vehicle had not been properly maintained or apparently there was any visible cause attracting depreciation. Moreover, we do not find any table filed with the reply of the Appellant before the Forum below which shows any depreciation for vehicle of just five months if it meets with an accident during this short period. The Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company quoted a number of citations, stressing on the award given on the basis of market value assessed by the Surveyer but none of them disclosed even a single instance where for a vehicle of just five months old involved in the accident, depreciation was deducted from the insured amount 7. Therefore, the Ld. Forum below has rightly placed reliance on a decision by the Honble UP. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S Rajesh Thripathi II (1999) CPJ 512 and in view of the facts and circumstances we find no reason to differ with this conclusion. Therefore, the Ld. Forum below has rightly placed reliance on a decision by the Honble UP. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S Rajesh Thripathi II (1999) CPJ 512 and in view of the facts and circumstances we find no reason to differ with this conclusion. With regard to so called consent, the Forum below has rightly pointed out deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company, in as such as consent letter was sent on 21 10.1999 and complaint was filed on 25.5.2001 and the Company did not take stops to hand ever the amount during this long period. Moreover, this is a common method with the Insurance Companies to compel the insured for giving advance consent or else has claim would not be finalized/cleared by the higher authorities. 8. In view of above discussion we do not find any cogent reason to differ with the findings of the Ld. Forum below and upheld the same. 9. As per invoice obtained by the Surveyer and stated in his report, it has been mentioned that the price of sum DX as on 12.5.98 with M/S Sikand and Co. Solan was Rs. 4,58,074/-. In view of this, we reduce the principal awarded amount from Rs, 4,76,000/- to Rs. 4,60,000/-. Since, this commission has constantly been following the practice of awarding 9% interest therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the rate of interest is also reduced from 12% to 9% payable from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 25.5.2001. The litigation cost of Rs. 2500/- is however, maintained. 10. The complainant/respondent is else directed to return the salvage of the -vehicle in question alongwith its R.C to the Insurance Company. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of.