ORDER Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.11.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State dismissing the complaint. 2. Petitioner, owner of transport vehicle bearing Registration No. MCY 2793 obtained a policy from the respondent/Insurance Company for the period from 23.10.1993 to 22.10.1994. Insured amount was Rs. 1,56,000. Vehicle met with an accident on 24.9.1994. In regard to the accident FIR was lodged with the police. Respondent was also intimated by the appellant. Respondent appointed L.M. Kirpalani as a Surveyor. Appellant submitted estimate of Rs. 1,91,626.64 towards cost of the spare parts needed and labour charges. On claim not being settled, the appellant filed complaint which was contested by the respondent/Insurance Company. 3. We have heard Mr. R.H. Pal for appellant and Mr. A.K. Raina for respondent and have been taken through the record. 4. Order of State Commission would show that complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the appellant after accident had removed the vehicle from the place of accident to a public lorry terminal which was in open space thereby exposing it to further deterioration, appellant did not offer satisfactory explanation regarding delay in intimating the Insurance Company of the accident, general condition of the vehicle even prior to the accident was not good, police was not informed immediately of the occurrence by the appellant. Along with reply the respondent has filed the copy of report dated 9.1.1995 of L.M. Kirpalani, Surveyor. In this Report the assessment of damage to the vehicle has been made at Rs. 32,445, respondent has also filed the copy of letter dated 24.10.1994 sent by the Surveyor to the respondent/Insurance Company. This letter would show that Surveyor had conducted the survey for assessment of loss on 7.10.1994 within about two weeks of the accident. It is not in dispute that respondent was intimated belatedly of the occurrence sometime on 7.10.1994, appellant had removed the vehicle from the place of accident to the public lorry terminal which was open space without intimation to the Insurance Company, appellant had made claim for an exorbitant amount of Rs. 1,91,626,64 with the respondent Insurance Company. Be that as it may, from the said report of Surveyor it cannot be doubted that vehicle had met with an accident was damaged which was assessed at Rs. 32,445 by the Surveyor. 1,91,626,64 with the respondent Insurance Company. Be that as it may, from the said report of Surveyor it cannot be doubted that vehicle had met with an accident was damaged which was assessed at Rs. 32,445 by the Surveyor. Appellant, thus, cannot be denied payment of this amount by the respondent-Insurance Company. Order of State Commission in dismissing the complaint in toto cannot be sustained in law. 5. For the foregoing discussion, while partly allowing appeal aforesaid order dated 7.11.2002 is set-aside. Respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay amount of Rs. 32,445 to the appellant within six weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the appellant will be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount. In the facts and circumstances of case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed. ––