1.     This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assails order dated 27.03.2017 in First Appeal No.302 of 2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) arising out of the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI) New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No.513 of 2012 dated 29.01.2014. The impugned order upholds the finding of the District Forum while modifying the quantum of compensation awarded.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had insured his Maruti Ritz VDI bearing registration number DL3CBS2112 for a sum of Rs.4,89,893/- for the period from 26.03.2011 to 25.03.2012 and paid a premium of Rs. 15,210/-. On the night of 14.11.2011, the vehicle met with an accident while attempting to avoid one Neelgai, which came in front of the vehicle in the process of which the vehicle hit the trees and was damaged extensively. A police complaint was registered on 16.11.2011. A claim was lodged with the respondent insurance company whose surveyor, after inspecting the vehicle, declared it to be a total loss as the cost of repair exceeded the declared value. The repair estimate by the workshop was Rs.3,52,000/-. The claim was repudiated on the basis of the report of the surveyor on the ground that the surveyor stated that the driver was under the influence of liquor.

3.     The consumer complaint filed before the District Forum was allowed on the ground that the respondent /opposite party had not objected to the Medical Legal Case report (MLC) and the police report lodged on 16.11.2011. The repudiation was only based on the ground that the driver was in a drunken state. The order of the District Forum directed payment of IDV value of Rs.4,89,890/- along with 9% interest from the date of repudiation of claim till realization, along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.21,000/-as litigation charges within 30 days. The appeal filed before the State Commission in FA/302/2014 by the Respondent was disallowed on the facts of the case. However, the quantum of award given by the District Forum was reduced to Rs.1,25,925/- towards repairs on the basis of the loss assessed by the surveyor on 26.12.2011. The State Commission held that it found no reason to disagree with the surveyor’s report, since details of each and every damaged part was stated in a detailed report and therefore, modified the District Forum Order to the extent of awarding Rs.1,25,925/- with interest @ 9% from the date of repudiation of claim till payment along with the compensation and litigation costs awarded.

4.     This order is impugned before us on the ground that the State Commission accepted the surveyor report without examining the surveyor himself. The estimate prepared is also disputed since the complete list of damaged parts was not considered. It was also contended that the State Commission erroneously relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Nand Kishore Jaiswal Vs. National Insurance Company Limited III (2009) CPJ 194 NC wherein the document relied upon was only a photo and a copy of the original had not been placed on record. The Petitioner, therefore, prays that the award of the District Forum be restored along with 18% interest, Rs.20,000/- towards parking charges, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.21,000/-.

5.     I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully considered the material on record. On the basis of the material available on record, it is evident that the order of the District Forum is based upon the estimate prepared by the workshop where the vehicle was taken for repairs. This amount comprises Rs.3,52,000/- towards repair costs and an additional cost of Rs.33,970/- towards parking charges. The State Commission in its order has held that the report of the Surveyor dated 26.12.2011 assessing the loss of Rs.1,25,925/- is a more accurate assessment, since no cogent evidence has been produced regarding the total loss of vehicle.

6.     The State Commission relied upon this Commission’s order in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Sehrawat (P) Ltd., III 2009 CPJ 4 NC, wherein it was held as under:

“It is settled law that report of a surveyor has to be given due importance in arriving at the conclusion about net loss suffered by the consumer unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary.”

It is also relied upon in Nand Kishore Jaiswal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2009) CPJ 194 NC, National Commission had held that surveyor report is an important document. It should be given due credence unless there are adequate reasons to discard the same.”

7.     In view of the foregoing, it is manifest that the vehicle was under a valid insurance cover as on the date of the accident. The contention of the Respondent / Insurance Company that the driver was intoxicated has not been proved. The MLC and the police report also did not mention that the driver was under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the Respondent / Insurance Company has been rightly rejected by the lower fora. The issue that remains is that of quantum of costs to the complainant in respect of repair of the vehicle. In this regard, the assessment of the State Commission which is based upon the report of the surveyor appointed by the respondent/ insurance company has to be accepted instead of the estimate prepared by the workshop. Under the Insurance Act, 1939 and IRDA guidelines the appointment of the surveyor is a mandatory requirement for any claim exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and a surveyor’s report has to be given due weightage unless the report is proved to be arbitrary or erroneous.

8.     The petitioner’s allegation that the surveyor had demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- from him has not been proved before the lower fora. In view of this fact, the report of the surveyor’s has to be given its due credence. It is, however, seen that the surveyor’s report does not provide on any amount towards the parking charges of the vehicle in the workshop. This amount is, therefore, required to be provided to the Petitioner.

9.     In view of the foregoing and the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the State Commission is upheld. However, the award of the District Commission is modified to include a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards parking charges of the insured vehicle at the premises of the workshop in addition to the amounts awarded by way of the impugned order dated 27.03.2017. All pending I.As, if any, shall be disposed off with this order.