Complainant/respondent got his vehicle insured with the petitioner insurance company for a sum of Rs.4,77,000/- on 26.12.2004 against risk of damages and theft.  The vehicle met with an accident on 26.12.2004, in respect of which a police report was lodged.  Subsequently, the respondent lodged claim with the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,25,169/-, i.e., expenses incurred by him for repair of the vehicle.  Surveyor appointed by the petitioner has assessed the loss at Rs.84,553.84.  Petitioner repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground that Complainant did not provide certain information.   Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,169/- to the respondent.  Rs.40,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs.   

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 

        We agree with the view taken by the fora below that the petitioner was not justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent.  However, we are of the opinion that fora below should have ordered reimbursement of the loss of Rs.84,553.84 as had been assessed by the surveyor and not Rs.1,25,169/-.  Report of the surveyor is an important piece of evidence which can be displaced only by leading cogent evidence.  In the present case, respondent did not lead any evidence to show that he had in fact spent Rs.1,25,169/- on the repair of the vehicle.

        For the reasons stated above, order of the fora below is modified.  Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.84,553.84 to the respondent instead of Rs.1,25,169/-.  Rest of the order of the fora below is maintained.

        Revision petition is disposed of in above terms.