This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Future Generalli India Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 17.5.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.30 of 2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner herein had insured the vehicle of the complainant/respondent which was valid from 21.9.2013 to 20.9.2014. Insurance was granted subject to standard terms and conditions which are applicable to insurance on the motor vehicle. The vehicle got damaged on 25.6.2014 due to fire. The insurance company appointed B&S Insurance & Loss Assessor, a duly licensed surveyor & loss assessor, to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40,531/- as per the report dated 1.9.2014. Aggrieved by this amount, the complainant however filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chandigarh with a request that the total expenditure incurred by him for repair of the motor vehicle should be allowed. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company. However, the District Forum after considering the submissions of both the parties allowed he complaint vide its order dated 19.12.2016 as under: “In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the opposite party is deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice and the same is allowed, qua it. The opposite party is directed to: “(a) Pay the balance amount of Rs.1,32,913.35 to the complainant. Pay Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
(c ) Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation.” 3. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the petitioner herein/OP preferred an appeal bearing no.30/2017 before the State Commission which has been dismissed vide order dated 17.5.2017 by the State Commission. 4. Hence, the revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum has allowed the insurance claim on the basis of repair bills and has not considered the report of the surveyor. The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40,531/-. There are several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the surveyor’s report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reasons. No cogent reason has been given by the District Forum or the State Commission. The State Commission in addition has given a finding that the terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied to the complainant and therefore, the assertion of the petitioner/OP that as per relevant condition of the insurance policy, the company is not liable to pay consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failure of breakage, is not applicable in the present case. It was argued by the learned counsel that the surveyor has not assessed the damage caused due to short circuiting due to wrong wiring in the vehicle. The surveyor has assessed the loss to the body and other machinery of the vehicle and has reached to a conclusion that only a sum of Rs.40,531/- is payable. It was prayed that the revision petition may be admitted and the order of the State Commission be set aside. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. 8. The State Commission has observed the following in its order: “It was argued that the mechanical or electrical breakdown is not covered under the policy. The said plea cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, the terms and conditions, on which, reliance has been placed, are not available on record of the Forum. At the time of arguments, counsel for the appellant made an attempt to show us that document. However, at this stage, it is not possible for this Commission to look into the same. Furthermore, accidental fire cannot be termed as vehicle breakdown. Otherwise also, we have held in earlier part of this order, that there is no proof that fire was caused on account of short circuiting as alleged by the surveyor. No evidence in the shape of photographs etc. has been placed on record, to support above said contention.” 9. From the above observation, it is clear that the State Commission has given clear reason for not accepting the surveyor’s report regarding not assessing the damage due to electrical breakdown. It is thus, not correct to say that the surveyor’s report has not been considered. In fact, cogent reasons have been given for not accepting the surveyor’s report and the reasons are not ungenuine. In my view, the surveyor was not justified in not assessing the total loss and leaving aside the assessment of loss due to electrical damage as this is a prerogative of the insurance company as to what is to be allowed and what is not to be allowed. The surveyor cannot assume application of a particular clause of the policy without any instruction from the insurance company and not assess the loss supposedly falling under that clause. The surveyors generally assess the total loss and then give recommendation about applicability of various clauses and liability of insurer. As the surveyor has not assessed the total loss in the fire accident, the report of the surveyor cannot be treated as complete and therefore, both the fora below have not committed any irregularity in not accepting the surveyor’s report in toto. 10. A perusal of the judgement dated 19.12.2016 of the District Forum and order dated 17.5.2017 of the State Commission reveals that both the fora below have given concurrent findings. In such cases, the scope of the revision petition is quite limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following matters: “1. In Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, held “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.” (2) In Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, the following has been observed: “23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.” 11. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 17.5.2017 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, R.P. No. 2347 of 2017 is dismissed at admission stage. | 
