Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is filed by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Order dated 10-07-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in CC/28/2015, by which the said case has been decided in favour of the Respondent No. 1, Armina Khatun.

The insured vehicle of the Respondent No. 1 met an accident on 11-06-2013.  After getting intimation of such accident, the Appellant deputed a Surveyor to carry out spot survey.  Afterwards, another Surveyor was appointed to cause extensive survey.  Notwithstanding the said Surveyor submitted necessary survey report to the Insurance Company, the same was not shared with the Respondent No. 1.  In any case, as the Appellant disagreed to settle the claim on total loss basis, the instant complaint case was filed. Counter case of the Appellant before the Ld. District Forum was that neither in the spot survey report nor in the claim intimation slip, there was any mention of bending of chassis.  The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,71,457.50.  After submission of final survey report, the Respondent No. 1 was asked to furnish requisite documents. However, neither did she produce relevant documents, nor got the vehicle repaired.  For this reason, the instant claim could not be settled.

We heard the parties in the matter at full length and gone through the documents on record extensively.

The moot point for consideration is whether or not the chassis of the insured vehicle got bent as a result of accident. 

In this regard, on a reference to the photocopy of final survey report, we find that the Surveyor did not mince words admitting the fact that the chassis did deformed badly.  Further, it appears that the expert appointed by the Ld. District Forum also stated in his report that the chassis got bent and the same was non-repairable.  Significantly, the Appellant did not challenge the findings of said expert either before the Ld. District Forum or this Commission.   

In view of this, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the Respondent No. 1 that the chassis of the vehicle in question got badly damaged.

It does raise eyebrows that although the Surveyor mentioned in his report that the chassis frame severely bent deformed and twisted, while calculating the extent of loss, he did not figure out this fact.  We do hold the opinion of a Surveyor in high esteem.  However, when it is found that the said report suffers from some sort of inherent defects, the same cannot be accepted at its face value.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 also drew our attention to the fact that the Appellant did not make any concerted effort to prove the survey report by producing the same under affidavit and as a result, the Respondent No. 1 was deprived of the liberty to cross examine the concerned Surveyor. 

Given that the Appellant wanted to establish the survey report as a sacrosanct document, certainly, it needed to prove the same following due process of law which was not done in this case. 

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant though contended that no representation was made from the end of the Respondent No. 1 before the Surveyor regarding alleged bending of chassis, in our considered opinion, it was totally immaterial as to whether or not the Respondent No. 1 drew the attention of the Surveyor regarding bending of the chassis.  As a Surveyor, it was his bounden responsibility to examine the vehicle thoroughly/diligently/properly. While the Surveyor himself admitted this fact in his report, non-mentioning of such fact in the claim form by the Respondent No. 1 could not stand in the way of settlement of the claim in anyway.

In view of overwhelming evidence to support the claim of the Respondent No. 1, we do not think by allowing the complaint case, the Ld. District Forum committed any wrong. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this Appeal with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1.