JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners heard. 2. In cases filed against the insurance company, it cannot be laid down as the Rule of Thumb that the report of surveyor must be accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards an authority quoted by the District Forum in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rabinder Narayan 2010 CTJ 420 (CP) (NCDRC). 4. We are also aware of the Supreme Court authority in this regard in case of United India Insurance Company Limited and others vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills and others 2000(10) SCC 19 and the recent judgment decided by a bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan in D.N. Badoni vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) CPJ 272 (NC). In all these authorities, it is clearly provided that if it is proved that the evidence of the surveyor is to be discarded, there lies no rub for the Commission to reject it. -3- 5. The case of the complainant is that his shop was gutted into fire and he had suffered damages. He had claimed a sum of Rs.21,83,646/-. The Surveyor came to the conclusion that he suffered a loss of Rs.14,08,741/-. 6. The District Forum placed reliance on his report. However, we are unable to attach much importance with the order rendered by the District Forum. 7. In our view, the reasoning given by the State commission is correct. The State Commission in its order held: “10. Another reason for our not agreeing with the surveyor about the value of the stock is that the complainants had been submitting statements of stock to the bank for a period of more than six months prior to the incident of fire and as per those statements (Annexure C-XIII to C-XVIII) the value of the stock was between Rs.23.00 lacs and Rs.24.00 lacs. 11. We assume the values of the stock on the basis of the aforesaid statements, equivalent to the mean of the value of the stock for six months and it works out at -4- Rs.23,62,118/- or say Rs.23,60,000/-. Normally there is variation upto 5% both in the quantity and the value of the stock and also some stock is head, the value of which is approximately 5%. So, we reduce the aforesaid figure by 10% and when so reduced, the value of the stock comes to Rs.21,24,020/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is required to be deducted from this figure on account of excess clause. The net value of the stock, thus, works out at Rs.21,14,000/-. Out of the available stock, goods worth Rs.2,42,971/- remained unaffected as per list, Annexure C-XII, prepared by the Excise & Taxation Department people and relied upon by the complainants themselves. So, this figure is required to be deducted from the figure of the value of total stock available immediately before the occurrence of the fire incident. Thus the value of the damaged stock works out at Rs.18,71,029/-, or say Rs.18,71,000/-. This is the amount of money, which is payable to the complainants, on account of insurance money. -5- 8. The State Commission also observed that the total IDV was of Rs.40 lakh. Therefore, it can legitimately be presumed that the functionaries/valuers of the insurance company must have done some exercise to assess the value of the stock available in the shop of the complainant before insuring the same for Rs.40 lakh. The revision petition is without merits, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
