Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 27-03-2018, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur in CC/06/2017, whereby the complaint case has been allowed.

The complaint case was filed over partial settlement of the insurance claim being lodged by the Respondent No. 1 with the Appellants.

Parties were heard through their respective Ld. Advocates and documents on record carefully gone through.

Underlining the importance of the survey report, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants submitted that only an expert like the Surveyor could decide the necessity of replacement of parts in respect of damaged insured vehicle and in absence of any counter expert opinion, the same could not be cut short to nullity.  Accordingly, prayer was made for setting aside the impugned order.

It transpires from the survey report that after inspecting the vehicle in question, the Surveyor categorically held that the damages sustained by the insured vehicle were consistent with the cause and nature of accident.  The extent of damage, as noted in the survey report, leave no room for ambiguity that it indeed sustained grave damage as a result of the accident. 

Now, what remains puzzling in this case is that, while the Surveyor allowed replacement of some of the parts, without offering any explanation, he put his foot down in respect of some as well.  While he was free to decide the requirement and/or non-requirement of replacement of a particular spare part, we think, he could at least explain the reason in that regard so as to enable one to appreciate the reason. 

The least expected of any survey report is that it would be prepared in such a manner that no one would find difficulty in understanding the rational of the decision making process of the Surveyor.  

In this case, while the Surveyor disagreed to allow replacement of some parts, we feel he could prepare a joint inspection report along with the Insured detailing therein the names of spare parts that he would ultimately allow and get it countersigned by the Insuree. Copy of no such joint inspection report is placed before us by the Appellant.    

It is a complete misnomer that the survey report is sacrosanct.  Though it is treated as an important document, the same is always subject to judicial scrutiny.  As the pressing need behind leaving out so many parts is not properly explained in the final survey report, we afraid, we cannot accept the survey report at its face value. 

In our considered view, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 deserves benefit of doubt in this case and accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in any manner whatsoever.

We, accordingly, dismiss this Appeal.  No costs.