Delay of 53 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned. Petitioner insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum. Case of the complainant/respondent is that she got her Swaraj Mazda truck insured with the petitioner. During the currency of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident. Complainant lodged the claim with the petitioner which was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle and at the time of accident unauthorized passengers were being carried in it. The vehicle being registered as a goods carrier, the insured was not permitted to carry unauthorized persons. Aggrieved by his, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs.2,24,513/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Rs.2,500/- were awarded as costs. District Forum arrived at the figure of Rs.2,24,513/- based on the report submitted by the surveyor. Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner as well as the respondent/complainant filed appeals before the State Commission. Petitioner had prayed for dismissal of the complaint whereas the respondent had asked for enhancement of the compensation as, according to him, he had spent a sum of Rs.3,23,129/-. The respondent had submitted an estimate prepared by a dealer of Swaraj Mazda. State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant and enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,23,129/- instead of Rs.2,24,513/- awarded by the District Forum. Rate of interest and costs were maintained. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has erred in awarding the sum of Rs.3,24,129/- on the estimate prepared by the authorized dealer of the vehicle in question. That merely on the basis of the estimate prepared by the dealer, the State Commission could not have brushed aside the report submitted by the surveyor which was an important piece of evidence. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on the basis of the estimate prepared by the authorized dealer, report of the surveyor, which is an important piece of evidence, could not be ignored. It has been held repeatedly that the report submitted by the surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due consideration and weight unless the same is rebutted. Although report submitted by the surveyor is not sacrosanct but the same can be ignored only if there is some other authentic evidence to prove to the contrary. In the present case, respondent did not produce any evidence showing that he had in fact paid the sum of Rs.3,23,129/- to the authorized dealer for getting the vehicle repaired. Respondent had relied upon only an estimate prepared by the authorized dealer, which by itself would not be sufficient to ignore the report submitted by the surveyor. For the reasons stated above, we allow this Revision Petition, set aside the enhancement ordered by the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
