ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 75 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the respondent; Rs. 50,000/- towards financial and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses within a month from the date of the order, failing which the respondent was also held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. The appellant was, however, given liberty to deduct the amount of No Claim Bonus provided by the appellant to the respondent and to pay the remaining amount to the respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. DL2F-CP-0011, which was insured with the appellant – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 04.08.2010 to 03.08.2011. The policy in question was a Cashless Policy and in the event of damage to the insured property (vehicle) during the period of insurance, the payment of bill of repairs of the authorised workshop of the insurance company, was to be made by the insurance company. During the subsistence of the policy of insurance, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 03.12.2010 and the same was taken to the authorised workshop for repairs. On receipt of the intimation regarding accident of the insured vehicle, the insurance company appointed surveyor, who visited the workshop on 07.12.2010 and assessed the loss at Rs. 1,20,000/- and directed for repair of the vehicle. However, vide letter dated 11.01.2011, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that he has wrongly availed 20% No Claim Bonus by suppression of correct facts. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. However, vide letter dated 11.01.2011, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that he has wrongly availed 20% No Claim Bonus by suppression of correct facts. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that at the time of taking the policy, the complainant has suppressed the material facts; that the complainant has received claim from the previous insurance company of the vehicle and he has wrongly availed No Claim Bonus from them; that the complainant has taken the policy on the basis of misrepresentation; that the complainant has taken the claim in the previous year from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited; that the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 11.01.2011 and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 03.10.2012 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that he has made wrong declaration at the time of taking the insurance policy in question and suppressed the fact that he had received claim from the previous insurance company of the vehicle and wrongly availed the No Claim Bonus from the insurance company and, as such, he was not entitled to any claim and his claim was rightly rejected. 7. The cover note of the policy in question is on record (Paper No. 44). Serial No. 10 of the said cover note pertains to premium calculation and the premium has been calculated as Rs. 9,500/-, which amount was paid by the complainant. Under Serial No. 10, there is also a column for No Claim Bonus, which has been left blanked. This shows that No Claim Bonus was provided to the complainant. Serial No. 10 of the said cover note pertains to premium calculation and the premium has been calculated as Rs. 9,500/-, which amount was paid by the complainant. Under Serial No. 10, there is also a column for No Claim Bonus, which has been left blanked. This shows that No Claim Bonus was provided to the complainant. Since no No Claim Bonus was provided to the complainant and hence it can not be said that any misrepresentation was made by the complainant at the time of taking the policy and he had suppressed the fact that he hasreceived the claim from the previous insurance company of the vehicle. 8. The impugned order shows that the District Forum has elaborately dealt with this aspect of the matter and after verifying the signatures of the complainant, came to the conclusion that the NCB declaration (Paper No. 49) does not contain the signatures of the complainant and no such declaration was made by the complainant. We do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the District Forum. From the material available on record, it is not proved that any material fact was suppressed by the complainant or that any misstatement was made by him. Thus, the insurance company has certainly made deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant and the finding to that effect recorded by the District Forum is perfectly justified and does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. So far as the quantum is concerned, the District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- on the basis of the bills of repair submitted by the complainant. The insurance company has appointed Sh. Amit Silswal as surveyor, who has submitted his report dated 23.02.2011 (Paper Nos. 56 to 60) and wherein, he has assessed the net loss at Rs. 95,729/-. It is a settled law that in insurance matters, the report of the surveyor is an important piece of evidence and the same can not be brushed aside unless there is cogent evidence to the contrary on record. The impugned order shows that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the report of the surveyor and thus, the compensation awarded by the District Forum need to be reduced to Rs. 95,729/-. The impugned order shows that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the report of the surveyor and thus, the compensation awarded by the District Forum need to be reduced to Rs. 95,729/-. So far as the interest awarded by the District Forum @9% p.a. is concerned, we are of the view that the same is on the higher side and in our considered opinion, the same need to be reduced to 7% p.a. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, there is no question of separate compensation for financial and mental agony and hence the award of Rs. 50,000/- passed by the District Forum towards financial and mental agony, is liable to be set aside. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, are justified. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is to be modified as such. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 03.10.2012 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant – insurance company is directed to pay sum of Rs. 95,729/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. However, if any rebate has been given by the appellant to the respondent towards No Claim Bonus, the said amount may be deducted from the award amount and the remaining amount be paid to the respondent. The cost of the appeal is made easy.