ORDER Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President:- Shri Ratish Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the impugned order dated 10.1.2005 in Complaint No. 944/99 passed by the District Forum, Shimla is not sustainable in any situation, whatsoever. As according to him, respondent as well as his cousin Shri Naveen Gupta had consented for total loss of Car No. HP-03-3340 at Rs. 1,45,000/-. Annexure R.4 is a copy of letter purported to have been received from the respondent by the Divisional Manager of the appellant at Mandi and Annexure R.5 is a consent letter purported to have been given by Naveen Gupta on 6.8.1999 to that effect. Annexure R.7 is the discharge voucher. It is in the sum of Rs. 1,44,000/-. This amount was received by the Attorney of the respondent, according to Mr. Sharma, in full and final settlement of all claims present or future regarding vehicle in question accident of which occurred on 11.7.1999. We are taking note of only these facts being relevant for deciding this appeal. Mr. Sharma forcefully urged that after having received a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim in question, complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum below. It not only fell into error in entertaining the same, but also in passing the impugned award. With a view to support the plea of full and final settlement vide Annexure R.7, he also placed reliance on the affidavit of Shri G.S. Chandel, who was working as Senior Assistant in the Shimla Branch office. Further, according to Shri Sharma, Surveyor Mohinder Kumar Sharma has also filed affidavit alongwith his Survey report as Annexure M.1/1 to M.1/5. Cumulative effect of all these documents according to him is that the respondent having consented and then having received the amount, this appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order set aside. All these pleas have been controverted by Shri Verma on behalf of the respondent, who submitted that in Annexure R.7 subject to our rights was mentioned by his client which was unauthorisedly scored off and averments to the contrary made in the affidavit of Shri G.S. Chandel, Senior Assistant of the appellant are factually incorrect. 2. Great emphasis was laid by Shri Sharma on the report of Surveyor annexure M.1/1 to M.1/5 attached with his (Surveyors) affidavit. 2. Great emphasis was laid by Shri Sharma on the report of Surveyor annexure M.1/1 to M.1/5 attached with his (Surveyors) affidavit. Its perusal shows that he had assessed the compensation on three modes, one is on repair basis. According to his assessment, loss on report basis minus salvage works out to Rs.1,09,912.25P. Total loss on present marked value basis was worked out on the basis of average market value of 1998 model vehicle which has run 6200 K.M. after deducting Rs. 50,000/- as salvage value with R/C, at Rs.95,000/-. Finally he had suggested to the Insurance Company as under:- "Thus from above it is clear that if loss is settled on Market Value basis for Rs.1,45,000/- as Total loss of the vehicle is economical for insurer and insured both hence recommended" 3. So far this recommendation of the Surveyor to settle the matter at Rs.1,45,000/- on total loss basis is concerned, this was consented to vide Annexures R.4 and R.5 per Mr. Sharma. A perusal of both these documents clearly suggests that there is no mention of return of salvage as was urged by him during the course of hearing. Admittedly this consented amount has not been paid by the appellants. Therefore, the loss assessed at Rs. 1,45,000/- by the Surveyor was not accepted by the appellants when it only paid Rs. 1,44,000/- vide Annexure R.7. In view of this factual position, we are of the view that the respondent rightly could maintain the complaint in which impugned order has been passed. Admittedly, vehicle was insured on Insureds Estimated Value (I.E.V.) in the sum of Rs.2,02,000/-. Its year of manufacturer was 1998 and insurance policy was issued on 24.7.1998. Accident had taken place on 11.7.1999 i.e. within one year of its purchase. As per Surveyors report, it had covered about 6200 kms. Only. In Annexure R.3, Surveyor has assessed the market value of the vehicle at Rs.1,45,000/-. On what basis/grounds, there is nothing stated by him nor any reason is given in support of his this assessment. His evidence is being relied upon by the appellant as an expert on the subject appointed by the Government of India. It hardly needs to be clarified that opinion of an expert has to be sustainable in the eyes of law by some reasoning, howsoever brief it may be. This is lacking in the present case. His evidence is being relied upon by the appellant as an expert on the subject appointed by the Government of India. It hardly needs to be clarified that opinion of an expert has to be sustainable in the eyes of law by some reasoning, howsoever brief it may be. This is lacking in the present case. Though learned Counsel persisted with vehemence that it is his (Surveyors) satisfaction about the market value and it cannot be questioned. We are sorry to say that we cannot accept giving such a vast authority to the Surveyor who will assess the market value without giving reasons and/or basis for his such opinion. Shri Sharma attempted by referring to the assessment made by the Surveyor minus salvage as noted hereinabove. This was not admittedly accepted by his client. Therefore, this argument falls to the ground. 4. Reliance placed on Annexure R.7, the discharge voucher coupled with the affidavit of Mr. G.S. Chandel who had paid the amount also does not improve the case of the appellants. Discharge voucher in our opinion is not free from doubt, if actually what is claimed by Shri Chandel in his affidavit is correct then we see no reason why a fresh discharge voucher was not got signed from the person who received the amount on 12.10.1999. Possibility of scoring off subject to our rights and initials below it being not of the attorney of respondent cannot be completely ruled out. To us apparently these are doubtful and it cannot be said with certainty as to whether it was scored off by Power of attorney holder on 12.10.1999 itself or by someone from appellants office. In this behalf, we may also observe that the complaint before the District Forum was also filed on 13.10.1999, therefore, it can by necessary implication be held that the respondent immediately lodged protest against the receipt of Rs. 1,44,000/-, even if Annexure R.7 is accepted, which according to appellants was in full and final settlement of his claim. To this, answer of Shri Sharma was that this was an attempt on the part of the respondent to hoodwink his clients i.e. the appellants. We are not willing to accept this submission. 5. Shri Ratish Sharma placed reliance on a few decisions to which reference will be made hereinafter. First decision relied upon by him was Oriental Insurance Co. To this, answer of Shri Sharma was that this was an attempt on the part of the respondent to hoodwink his clients i.e. the appellants. We are not willing to accept this submission. 5. Shri Ratish Sharma placed reliance on a few decisions to which reference will be made hereinafter. First decision relied upon by him was Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Suresh Arjun Karande 111-1992 (1) CPR 431. According to him his client was liable to pay the market value of the vehicle as on the date when it got involved in the accident not the actual amount stated in the policy. In the instance case, vehicle was less than one year old and how its market value was assessed at Rs. 1,45,000/-, at least we are unable to understand for want of basis to work out this amount by the Surveyor in Annexure M.1/1 to M.1/5. As such, no benefit can be derived from this judgment on behalf of the appellants. Next decision relied upon by Shri Sharma was Dilip Kumar Wamanrao Daryapurkar Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., 111 (1996) CPJ 29 (NC). In this case complainant had signed the voucher in full and final settlement of his claim but before amount was received by him, the complainant pleaded in the complaint that he had received the amount under protest whereas there was nothing on the file to prove this contention. In the light of these facts, National Commission held in this case that the complainant cannot allege any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. His remedy, if any, was before the civil Court. This decision also does not advance the case of the appellant for two reasons. Firstly, the so-called agreed amount had not been admittedly paid by the appellants to the respondent and the Surveyor had nowhere suggested in his report for return of salvage on the market value basis as extracted hereinabove. Second reason to reject this plea of Shri Sharma is that we have already held that Annexure R.7 is not free from doubt. 6. Other decisions relied upon by Shri Sharma New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus M/S. Geetanjali Silk House & Anr. 11 (1996) CPJ 95 (NC). In this case, what was held and is relevant for the purposes of present appeal is extracted herein below. "10. 6. Other decisions relied upon by Shri Sharma New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus M/S. Geetanjali Silk House & Anr. 11 (1996) CPJ 95 (NC). In this case, what was held and is relevant for the purposes of present appeal is extracted herein below. "10. From the record it is clear that at one stage the complainant had agreed to accept the sum of Rs.50,472/- and that amount had been duly paid to the Bankers of the complainant after the later had discharged the voucher which is at page 18 of the paper-book No. 189 of 1993 without any objection and therefore it cannot be said that the Insurance Company has committed any deficiency in the rendering of service. The said sum was tendered to the Bankers of the complainant after the execution of the discharge voucher and the Bank has accepted that amount. There is no allegation that the complainant or the Bank were.... in any way to accept the sum of Rs.50,472/- after the complainant had agreed to accept the amount.. was some delay on the part of the Insurance Company but even thereafter the Bankers executed the discharge voucher in full satisfaction of the claim and agreed to receive Rs.50,472/-. The delay appears to be due to the fact that after the report of the Surveyors the Insurance Company appointed an Investigator whose report is dated 10th June, 1991.The date on the discharge voucher is not legible but in the margin of the discharge voucher somebody has mentioned that the amount was pad on 8lh April, 1991. 11. The complainants case is that he had asked the Bank that he was not agreeable to the payment of Rs.50,472/-only against the claim which the Bankers had accepted. However, that letter was written to the Bankers by the complainant on 27th August, 1991 long after the date when the Bankers Liquidated the loan account of the complainant and remitted to him the balance amount i.e. Rs.28,839.83 vide cheque dated 11th May, 1991. Thereafter, in the circumstances the Bank cannot be said to be guilty of any negligence. If the complainant wanted to give any instructions to the bank it ought to have been given before the Insurance Company paid the amount. 12. Thereafter, in the circumstances the Bank cannot be said to be guilty of any negligence. If the complainant wanted to give any instructions to the bank it ought to have been given before the Insurance Company paid the amount. 12. In the light of the above discussion we accept the contention of the Insurance Company that there has been no deficiency in service or imperfection in the rendering of service of Insurance Company. Hence, we accept the Appeal No. 189 of 93 and set aside the Order of the State Commission, while the Appeal No. 313 of 1993 filed by the complainant fails". A perusal of this judgment clearly shows that it is on its own facts. At the same time, we are constrained to observe at the risk of repetition that the appellant itself has not stuck to the so-called consented sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- as mentioned in Annexure R.4 and R.5. 7. Lastly Shri Sharma relied upon the decision of National Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus M/s. Shakarbhairamdasmarfatia, 11(1997) CPJ 17 (NC). In this case what was observed and is relevant extracted herein below:- "The State Commission awarded interest to the complainant for the reason that the Insurance Company made an offer of Rs.1,75,000/-but had not actually paid them...... amount as receipt in full and final settlement had not been given by the complainant. That meant that the offer was not unconditional, which the complainant was not bound to accept and was actually not accepted. In our opinion, the reason given by the State Commission for awarding interest to the complainant was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We find no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant that the State Commission wrongly awarded interest @ 12%". This decision also does not advance the case of the appellants in addition to the fact that it is a decision on its own facts. A case nearer to the facts of the present appeal is New Indian assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ajay Kumar, 1(2001) CPJ 175. In this case, the vehicle was stolen on night of 31.12.1996 and it was insured for Rs.3,60,000/- with the Insurance Company for the period from 19.12.1996 to 18.12.1997. Owner agreed to receive Rs.3,27,500/- and had consented for this. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ajay Kumar, 1(2001) CPJ 175. In this case, the vehicle was stolen on night of 31.12.1996 and it was insured for Rs.3,60,000/- with the Insurance Company for the period from 19.12.1996 to 18.12.1997. Owner agreed to receive Rs.3,27,500/- and had consented for this. In this case, vehicle was purchased for Rs.3,54,759/- after taking loan and with accessories was insured for Rs.3,60,000/-. The consent letter was put up as a defense. Vehicle was stolen within 50 days of its purchase. In this background, while dismissing the appeal of the Insurance Company after placing reliance on a judgment of the National Commission in National Insurance Co. Versus New Bharat (sic) Mills, 11 (1999) CPJ 77 (NC), the order of the District Forum below was upheld whereby Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 3,60,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 1.4.1997 till the date of payment with cots of Rs. 1,000/- 8. In the face of the above discussion, we find that no benefit can be derived by the appellant either from Annexure R.4 & R.5 or from Annexure R.7 as was forcefully urged by Shri Ratish Sharma. Lastly it was urged by Shri Sharma that that the interest in no case on the compensation awarded should not have been allowed more than 6% per annum, though he hastened to add that his client is not at all liable to pay any amount much less what has been awarded by the District forum below. This stand was resisted by Mr. Verma. He submitted that the rate of interest allowed on the amount compensation is reasonable and just, rather according to him it is too conservative. Interest should have been allowed at a higher rate. We find no merit in this submission of Mr. Verma, particularly in the face of the present trend of the National Commission as well as Honble Supreme Court which normally in cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are allowing interest @ 9% per annum of the awarded compensation. We order accordingly. 9. No other point was urged. 10.ln view of the aforesaid discussion, while partly allowing this appeal, it is ordered on the compensation awarded by the District Forum below, appellant is held liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13,10,1998 till the date of its payment. We order accordingly. 9. No other point was urged. 10.ln view of the aforesaid discussion, while partly allowing this appeal, it is ordered on the compensation awarded by the District Forum below, appellant is held liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13,10,1998 till the date of its payment. Subject to this modification, rest of the award passed by the District Forum below is upheld leaving the parties to bear their own costs.