Petitioner insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent got his truck insured with the petitioner.  The said truck met with an accident which resulted in causing extensive damage.  This fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner who appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss.  The petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver did not have an effective and

-2-

valid driving license on the date of accident.  Aggrieved by this, respondent 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.27,564/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 01.9.2005 till realization and litigation costs of Rs.1500/-.

          Aggrieved against this, petitioner as well as the respondent filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and in the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant, amount of compensation was increased from Rs.27,564/- to Rs.61,204/-.  With this modification, appeal filed by the respondent was allowed.

          Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in “New India Assurance Company vs. Pradeep Kumar, Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002 decided on 09.4.2009” has held that report of the approved Surveyor is not sacrosanct and if there is any evidence to show to the

-3-

contrary, then the report of the Surveyor may not be relied upon.  The State Commission in its judgment has come to the finding that the report of the Surveyor appointed by the petitioner could not be accepted as he did not support his assessment as .  The State Commission disagreed with the report of the Surveyor by stating as under:

“14.            We have gone through the report of the Surveyor.  He is an independent person as well as an expert in the matter of assessment of loss.  With a view to support his opinion as an expert, it is expected of him that he would assign some reason, may be very briefly, or in a summary manner which may reflect the application of mind.  A perusal of Annexure OP/R.2 shows that while disallowing some of the items and directing repair of the others, and above all, while recommending the curtailed amount from the estimates as given by the insured, no reason any whatsoever has been assigned by him.  To the contrary, the insured has placed on record estimate, Annexure C.1, on pages 41 to 47 (internal pages 9 to 12).  While conducting survey and submitting his report, whether the rates of parts and labour charges etc. verified from

-4-

the authorized service point of the company whose vehicle was involved in the accident and/or from the persons whose estimates had been furnished vide Annexure C.1, there is nothing on record.  We are further of the view that the assessment made is highly arbitrary and unjust without any reasons/grounds/basis.  It hardly needs to be emphasized that Surveyor being an independent person has to ensure that his opinion is based on reason and supported by logic.  Both these facts are missing in the instant case.”

          With the help of learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the report of Sh. CHaman Singhal, approved Surveyor.  After going through the same, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the report of the Surveyor could not be relied upon as the conclusion arrived at by him         is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  Revision petition is dismissed.