ORAL The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order dated 25.06.2019 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short “the State Commission”) whereby the Appeal No.363 of 2014 of the Petitioner against the order dated 12.09.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.102 of 2011 was dismissed. 2. The Respondent (hereinafter called “the complainant”) filed the Complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service. -2- The admitted facts are that the Complainant had taken an insurance policy which is called industrial all risks insurance policy covering risk of damage caused by fire and material damaged due to breakdown of machinery for the factory situated at Komal Road, Maruthur Village, Therizhundur 609 808 and the insured value was at ₹44 Crores. On 06.09.2008, at about 15:30hrs. one of the insured machinery namely DG#3 double gear bearing bush had suddenly stopped working and the intimation was duly sent to the Petitioner. A surveyor was appointed who submitted his report. The Complainant submitted its claim for a sum of ₹15 Lakhs with supported purchase bills and invoices for the said machine. On 26.02.2010, he received a message that his claim for a sum of ₹4,10,290/- had only been approved. Due to financial crunch, the Complainant accepted the said amount on 31.03.2010. Next day, he wrote a letter to the Petitioner that he accepted the said amount under protest, reserving right to claim the balance amount. Thereafter, he filed the Complaint claiming the balance amount towards loss suffered by him. 3. Petitioner filed their written statement before the District Forum. However, they did not contest the matter thereafter and were proceeded ex parte. 4. Vide ex parte order, the District Forum directed the Petitioner to refund the sum of ₹9,57,903/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and -3- litigation costs of ₹5,000/-. 5. This order of the District Forum was impugned by the Petitioner before the State Commission where they took the plea that under certain clauses of the policy, since the stock was undervalued at the time of taking the policy, the Petitioner was justified in proportionately deducting the amount from the loss amount by the Complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the State Commission, however, rejected this contention and held as under: “13. ………. Point No.3:- having gone through the grounds and materials and arguments, it is clear that there are no grounds available on the side of the appellant. Ex.A.5, the assessor has stated the deduction at 39.01% as under insurance and on what basis the percentage was stated when there is proper coverage of insurance of ₹44 Crores, and the under instance has not been explained. Hence we could find no reason to interfere with the order dated 12.09.2014 made in CC No.102/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), accordingly, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. 6. This order is impugned before us on the same ground that the Petitioner was justified in proportionately deducting the money from the loss suffered by the Complainant on the ground that the stock was undervalued at the time when the policy was taken. 7. No doubt, certain clauses of the policy had permitted the Petitioner to make certain deductions in such a situation, however, it can be done only when on record it is proved that at the time of taking -4- the policy, the stock was undervalued. This fact is not proved by the Petitioner before the District Forum as they were ex parte. It is argued by learned Counsel that the surveyor report has been filed by the Complainant himself and the surveyor has clearly reported in his report that the stock was undervalued and the Forum below ought to have accepted this fact. It is apparent that the Complainant has though filed the surveyor report but has not accepted the surveyor report as a truthful report. In his complaint, he has challenged the said report. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the Petitioner to prove the correctness of the said surveyor report. Also admittedly the machine, which suffered damages, was insured with the Petitioner and does not relate to total loss at factory. The Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. | 
