Oriental Insurance Company has filed this revision petition against the order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 1111 of 2011. 2. Facts as seen from the record are that the Tata Safari vehicle of the complainant met with an accident during the period of validity of insurance taken from the revision petitioner/opposite party. The estimate of repair being substantially higher than the total IDV of the vehicle, the complainant sought settlement of the claim on the basis of total loss. The case of the insurance company was that in the assessment of the surveyor, it was a matter to be settled on repair basis and not on total loss basis. 3. I have perused the records submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner and heard Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate at length on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the comparative analysis contained at page-9 of the impugned order. Learned counsel points out that this does not reflect the position in terms of the conditions of the policy. The counsel seeks to place excessive reliance on the fact that the insurance surveyor had written to the complainant on 26.06.2009 to get the vehicle repaired. The exact communication reads as follows: “It has been decided to allow repairing of the vehicle in subject by replacing damage component, you are requested to start the repairing of the vehicle and contact the undersigned as and when the vehicle is dismantled for assessing the loss.” 4. In the background of the fact that the complainant considered it to be a case for settlement on total loss basis, I find that this letter conveyed absolutely nothing. Therefore, no fault will lie at the door of the complainant for not acting on the advice contained therein. 5. Learned counsel also seeks to rely on the report of the surveyor dated 31.03.2010. She makes a statement that this was a document submitted before the State Commission for consideration. It appears to be so, because the reduction of labour estimate of Rs. 97,800/- to Rs. 50,000/- in the report of the surveyor, finds a very specific mention in the order of the State Commission. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel accepted that the report of the surveyor does not carry any justification for this huge slashing of labour charge down to Rs. 50,000/-. 6. Another area of major reduction is the cost of parts from Rs. 5,98,289/- in the estimate to Rs. 4,40,000/- in the report of the surveyor. The report does not explain how it gets further reduced to Rs. 1,82,000/-, without any reference to the details in the estimate. It is argued by the counsel that difference of cost will carry rates of depreciation. If yes, the report of the surveyor has nothing to show for it. 7. Learned counsel has repeatedly emphasized that the action of the revision petitioner is based on policy terms and conditions. This matter has been gone into insufficient detail in the impugned order. The State Commission refers to condition No. 3 where the option of settlement on repair basis or constructive total loss basis is at the choice of the insurer. It has also gone into the definition of IDV and clarified that as per the terms of the policy itself. “IDV shall be treated as market value throughout the policy period without any further depreciation of the purpose of Total Loss (TL) or Constructive Total Loss (CTL).” The insured vehicle should be treated as CTL, if the aggregate cost of retrieval and or repair of the vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, exceed 75% of the IDV of the vehicle.” That the order of the State Commission has considered the report of the surveyor vis-vis the estimate of repair and then arrived at a finding of fact that the total cost of repair would have been more than Rs. 5,00,000/-. I do not find any ground to interfere with this finding of fact. 8. For the reasons discussed above, I find no ground to interfere in the well-considered order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The revision petition is held to be devoid of merit and dismissed, as such. | 
