Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 9.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.750 of 2008 was allowed with costs of Rs.2200/- and OPs were directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,66,157/- within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OPs were made liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. since 1.3.2008 till actual payment. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant got his Scorpio vehicle bearing NO.PB-13Q-4600 insured with OP Insurance Company vide insurance policy which was effective from 21.11.2007 to 20.11.2008. The said vehicle met with an accident on 6.12.2007 and got extensively damaged resulting into total loss. The matter was reported to police and FIR was registered. The intimation about the said accident was also given to OP Insurance Company and as per their advice the damaged vehicle was taken to M/s Sandeep Motors, Rajpura Road, Patiala, an authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. , who issued estimates of more than Rs.5.50 lacs. The claim was submitted to the company seeking indemnification of the loss and all the requisite formalities were completed as sought by them as well as by their Surveyor & Loss Assessor. However, OPs instead of settling the claim on total loss basis unjustifiably issued letter dated 3.4.2008 demanding repair invoice which was duly replied but inspite of that OP failed to settle the claim. It was averred that the repair estimate of the vehicle was beyond Rs.5.50 lacs whereas its insured value was Rs.5,60,000/- only which was almost equal to the said estimated cost, so, the claim should be settled on the basis of total loss. Hence, alleging deficiency in service & unfair trace practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 4. On the other hand, OPs contested the complaint and filed joint reply inter-alia stating therein that the net claim payable was assessed at Rs.3,66,157/- by the Surveyor as per terms & conditions of the policy which was prepared on the basis of the estimate so provided by the complainant. It was submitted that the estimate given by the workshop was not final in any manner as it also contained those parts which could be repaired. The complainant was asked to get the vehicle repaired and provide copy of the bills to the answering OPs enabling them to process the claim, but the complainant himself failed to do so inspite of letter dated 3.4.2008 and hence the claim amount under the insurance policy could not be disbursed. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/ complainant is that the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.5,60,000/- for the period from 21.11.2007 to 20.11.2008 and it met with an accident on 6.12.2007, so he was entitled to get the said insured amount . He further argued that the learned District Forum wrongly accepted the surveyor report and did not consider the estimate of Rs.5,37,632/- which was given to the insurance company. The surveyor had wrongly assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs.4,14,462/- and then illegally deducted Rs.89,650/-, so as such his report was liable to be discarded. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the following authorities ; (i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pradeep Kumar IV(2009)CPJ 46(SC) (ii)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mehar Chand IV(2009)CPJ230(NC). However, these points of arguments have been repelled by learned counsel for OPs. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions putforth on behalf of the parties. The insurance company on receipt of information about the accident deputed the surveyor Er. S.P.Singh who submitted his detailed report by considering each and every part of the vehicle to be replaced/repaired and keeping in view the estimate given by the complainant. No doubt surveyor’s report is not the last and final word and it is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from.; it is not conclusive. However, the approved surveyor & loss assessor is duly licensed and technical person and his report is an important piece of document which cannot be brushed aside without sufficient reasoning. Surveyor’s report itself is an evidence to be given due importance and weightage in absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As observed by the learned District Forum, the complainant could not contradict the surveyor report by placing on file any material and evidence to the contrary. The estimate given by the repairer was not a final document as some parts contained therein could be repaired instead of their replacement. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion , we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the learned District Forum and it requires no interference. Accordingly the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
