PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER 1. This first appeal has been filed by M/s Krishna Enterprises, Appellant herein and Original Complainant before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had dismissed its complaint against M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Opposite Parties/Respondents No. 1 & 2 and Punjab & Sind Bank, Opposite Party/Respondent No. 3. 2. FACTS : As per his complaint before the State Commission, Appellant, who is a proprietary firm engaged in the manufacture and packaging of sugar candy, had taken two Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policies from Respondent-Insurance Company for the period 13.08.2004 to 12.08.2005, out of which one policy was for Rs.37 Lakhs and covered the stocks of Bura, Makhana, Sugar, Mishri and goods of similar nature for manufacturing sugar candy and the second policy was for Rs.3.30 Lakhs which covered the factory building. Appellant paid the premium of Rs.3780/- for the first policy and Rs.749/- for the second policy. A fire broke out in the insured premises in the intervening night of 9th0th October, 2004, in which it was contended that the entire stock of goods was burnt and the factory and the shed were also damaged. Since Appellant had taken cash credit hypothecation limit against its stocks from Punjab & Sind Bank (Respondent No.3 herein), he reported the matter to both the Respondents as also the Police. He requested the Respondent-Insurance Company to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.41,78,445.50 being the damages caused due to the fire. The Respondent-Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who, however, assessed the loss at only Rs.15,62,823/-, which Appellant opposed and requested Respondent-Insurance Company to appoint another Surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.22,11,824/-, which Respondent-Insurance Company paid directly and without the consent of the Appellant to the Respondent-Bank in full and final settlement of Appellant claim and thus acted in arbitrary and malafide manner causing loss to the Appellant and was, therefore, guilty of deficiency in service. Appellant, therefore, filed a complaint before the State Commission and prayed that Respondent-Insurance Company be directed to pay (i) balance claim amount of Rs.17,86,592/- with interest @ 18% per annum; (ii) Rs.9,99,906/- being the loss suffered on account of hike in prices of raw material; (iii) Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony; and (iv) Rs.15,000/- on account of litigation costs. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, who are Bajaj Allianz Insurance General Insurance Co. Ltd., on being served filed a counter reply. It was admitted that two insurance policies were taken by the Appellant and as per an agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No.3 (i.e. Bank) Respondent-Insurance Company was obliged to make the payment in respect of the insurance claim directly to the Respondent Bank and not to the insured. Further, the second Surveyor, who had been appointed at the instance of the Appellant, had assessed the loss after detailed consultations with the insured and after examining the documents that were supplied by Appellant. Appellant had not been able to produce any cogent or credible evidence to justify payment of the balance amount over and above the amount of Rs.22,11,824/- assessed by the second Surveyor. 4. Respondent Bank in its written response pointed out that the Respondent-Insurance Company had rightly paid the insurance claim to the Bank and as agreed to in writing by the Appellant, this amount was credited to the Appellant account. Further, Appellant was in the habit of making frivolous complaints against Respondent Bank and had also filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman which he later withdrew. Subsequently, the Bank also requested the State Commission for deletion of its name stating that it had no case or complaint against the Bank. 5. The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it dismissed the complaint by inter alia observing as under : he complainant has not challenged, at any point of time, the above report of the second Surveyor who was appointed on its own request. In the complaint, the complainant had alleged that he was not supplied with a copy of the Survey report. Although, the O.P. had maintained in its reply that a copy of the survey report was furnished to the complainant, but nevertheless, a photocopy of this report was produced by the O.P. along with its reply filed on 28.10.2005 and copy thereof was given by the OP to the complainant before this Commission on the same day. But even thereafter, the complainant had not filed any rejoinder challenging the Survey report (Annexure R-1/4). In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that the complainant had filed an affidavit on 1.3.2006 before this Commission in support of the complaint but even in this affidavit the complainant had not at all challenged the survey report and had rather conspicuously maintained silence on the contents of the Survey Report. As such, the Survey Report produced in this case has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Complainant. Thus, in the present case, there is no iota of material on record to challenge any of the figures and several other observations made in the Survey Report. The complainant has failed to show as to how the report of the Surveyor is arbitrary. Apart from it, as stated above, the complainant has not furnished any basis for claiming compensation with regard to alleged loss due to fire in its premises. In these circumstances in the absence of any thing to the contrary, we do not have any other alternative but to accept the report of the Surveyor. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the present first appeal has been filed. 7. Learned Counsels for the parties made oral submissions. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the Respondent-Insurance Company committed deficiency in service (i) in not supplying the reports of the Surveyors to the Appellant; (ii) in settling the claim behind its back with the Respondent-Bank; and also (iii) in not indemnifying the claim for the actual amount of loss without giving due reasons for reaching this conclusion. It was specifically contended that the second Surveyor did not examine the stock statement available with the Bank who had inspected the premises, including the stocks just three days before the fire incident. Further, the Surveyor only took into account the limited stocks of sugar which had been damaged whereas in the insurance policy as per the policy schedule it was clearly indicated that the goods insured included Mishri, Bhura, Makhana and similar nature goods for manufacturing sugar candies. The cubic area of the affected site stated in the second Surveyor report was even less than that recorded in the first survey report. The State Commission also failed to take note of the statement of the Punjab & Sind Bank (Respondent No.3) filed in evidence clearly indicating that total stocks of Rs.36,12,578/- were available on 30.09.2004 i.e. just a few days before the fire took place. Despite pointing out these facts, the State Commission relying solely on the report of the second Surveyor dismissed the complaint, upholding the loss at Rs.22,11,824/- as assessed by the second Surveyor. Hence, the present prayer that the Respondent-Insurance Company be directed to pay the remaining balance claim amount of Rs.17,86,592/-. 9. Learned Counsel for Respondent-Insurance Company stated that the insurance policy taken by the Appellant was for a sum of Rs.37 Lakhs and it was not understood as to how the Appellant has now made a claim for an amount higher than for what the premises and stocks were insured for. It was denied that both the Surveyors were appointed behind the Appellant back. So far as the first Surveyor is concerned, he had physically inspected the site and minutely scrutinized the documents made available to him by the Appellant and only thereafter assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.15,62,823/-, which included Rs.13,93,570/- towards loss of plant, machinery and stocks under the first policy and Rs.1,69,253/- towards loss of building under the second policy. This assessment was duly communicated to the Appellant vide letter dated 15.12.2004. Thereafter following a written request by the Appellant, another Surveyor was appointed for reassessment of the loss and Er. Alind Kumar of M/s Apex Assessors Pvt. Ltd. was deputed for this purpose, who again after a detailed scrutiny of the books of accounts and physical inspection of the affected stocks and building certified and reassessed the loss of the Appellant at Rs.22,11,824/- i.e. Rs.20,42,919/- towards the loss to the stocks, plant and machinery and Rs.1,68,905 towards the loss to the building. Regarding Appellant contention that Respondent-Insurance Company erred in making the payment of the insured amount directly to the Bank, it was stated that this was as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and further the Appellant himself had authorized the Bank to discharge the assessed amount towards settlement of the claim. Thus, there was no irregularity or deficiency in this respect. Further, the Appellant had not been able to produce any evidence that the claim was wrongly/under assessed. Counsel for the Respondent Bank also stated that impleadment of Respondent Bank by the Appellant in the case was totally unwarranted. He brought to our notice a letter dated 11.06.2005 written by the Appellant to the Chief Manager of Respondent Bank stating that he was fully satisfied with the services provided by the Bank and would delink Respondent Bank in the complaint filed by him. 10. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The facts pertaining to the two insurance policies issued by the Respondent-Insurance Company to the Appellant, the hypothecation of the stocks with Respondent Bank and the fact that a fire took place which caused damage to both the stocks and building are not in dispute. It is further a fact that following the lodging of the claim with the Respondent-Insurance Company, a Surveyor was appointed, who after conducting a survey of the premises and stocks assessed the loss at Rs.15,62,823/-. After having gone through the record, we are unable to agree with the Appellant contention that he was unaware about the appointment of the first Surveyor since he could not have conducted the detailed survey of the Appellant premises without the Appellant even knowing about it. Appellant also contended that he was not aware regarding the appointment of second Surveyor whereas from his letter dated 16.12.2004 to Respondent-Insurance Company it is clear that the second Surveyor was appointed at the insistence of the Appellant himself since he was dissatisfied with the report of the first Surveyor. Further, vide his letter dated 27.01.2005 Appellant had written to the Chief Manager of Respondent-Insurance Company that he had provided the necessary information and documents to the Surveyor. 11. We have also carefully scrutinized the report of the second Surveyor which clearly states that the Appellant did not fully cooperate with the Surveyor and did not show the records maintained at the Appellant office at Chandpole Anaj Mandi, Jaipur to back his statement that goods worth Rs.41,78,455 were in stock and had been burnt and destroyed in the fire. We also note that Appellant has not produced any sales bills or statement from a Chartered Accountant or tax authorities to support its contention. On the other hand, we agree with the report of the Surveyor that Appellant while projecting a total loss of Rs.41,78,446/- has included the purported loss of certain items which were not covered under the policy, for e.g. packaging material. Further, the second Surveyor, who is a qualified Engineer, after inspection of the area and scrutiny of documents available has rightly concluded that the loss projected by the Appellant pertaining to the plant and machinery as also the raw material was very high and not backed by any documents in support of the same. During the course of oral submissions, we specifically asked the counsel for the Appellant to show us any document or credible evidence to prove that the loss was as high as contended by the Appellant. He was unable to show us any documents and relied essentially on the account statement of Respondent Bank that goods worth Rs.36,12,578/- were present in the premises prior to the fire. We have perused this document and note that it does not help the Appellant case since it is only a bare statement indicating that stocks of the above amount had been hypothecated to the Respondent Bank; there is no evidence that the stock position was the same 10 days later. 12. It is well settled through a catena of judgments of this Commission as also of the Honle Supreme Court [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohan Lal Oil Mills (2010) 10 SCC 19] that the Surveyor report has significant evidentiary value and cannot be displaced unless it is contradicted by credible evidence to the contrary. So far as the present case is concerned, after carefully perusing the entire evidence on record, we are unable to conclude that the Appellant has been able to produce any credible documentary or other evidence to contradict the report of the second Surveyor clearly giving detailed reasons for assessing the loss at Rs.22,11,824/-. 13. Keeping these facts in view and respectfully following the judgment of the Honle Apex Court in Roshan Lal Oil Mills (supra) we see no reason to differ with the order of the State Commission and, therefore, uphold the same. The present first appeal having no merit is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.