JUDGMENT : Asper S.K. Kulshrestha , J. (President ): - Boththe above mentioned appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act') assail separate orders dated18-7-2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in Case Nos. 117/2007 and 115/2007.Since a common controversy has been raised, both the appeals are being decidedby this common order. For the purpose of facts, reference has been made to theorder passed in Appeal No. 1746/07 unless otherwise stated. 2.It was not disputed that the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-07 G 3419owned by the appellant was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company on thedate of accident, i.e., on 13-5-2005 . Likewise the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-07 G5279 owned by the appellant was insured with the respondent. The complaint inbrief was that the vehicle met with an accident on 13-5-2005 and the respondent appointed a Surveyorafter receiving intimation from the appellant. The Surveyor submitted thatestimate after survey of the vehicle .. 3.The Insurance Company called for the documents pertaining to FIR, driving licence , permit and fitness but these documents were notproduced with the result the Insurance Company did not give the amount.However, during pendency of the appeal full amountwas paid in super session to its earlier offer to pay 75% of the amountassessed by the Surveyor. 4.Grievance of the appellant is that the amount has been unnecessarily deductedon the labour component of the repairs. The deductionhas been made after the physical examination of the vehicle by the Surveyor whois an expert in the line and therefore, it cannot be said that the amount hascapriciously been reduced. We, therefore, do not find any substance in thiscontention. 5.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that interest has been awarded from 1-3-2007 till the date of payment,while it should have been awarded from an anteriordate. We find that it is fair to award interest from the date of filing of thecomplaint ( 1-3-2007 ). 6.Accordingly, we do not find any ground to call for any interference in theseappeals. The appeals are dismissed but with no order as to costs.