O R D E R

PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

 1)        The facts in brief as regards this compliant are as under –

The Complainant is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning and definition of consumer under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Opposite Party is the Insurance Company from whom the Complainant took Specific Voyage Policy bearing No.250800/21/07/4300002168 for ensuring their consignment of 49 bundles of Crane Rails for covering all risk and paid the requisite premium. The policy is marked as Exh.‘B’. The Complainant entrusted the consignment to the Gudami International Pvt. Ltd., at China Port in good order & condition and in properly& securely packed condition for carriage by sea from China Port to the Mumbai Port by the Ocean vessel “NICETEC V.0804”.  The Company on receiving the said consignment issued clean on board Bill of Lading bearing No.0804NCXGBM06A dtd.23/03/08 acknowledging receipt of the said consignment in good order and condition and in securely packed condition which is marked as Exh.‘C’. 

 2)        The Complainant states that the said consignment arrived at the JNPT Port on or about 02/06/2008.  The said consignment on board the vessel was manifested under the Import General Manifest (I.G.M.) No.27652/2008 dtd.02/06/08 item No.19. The Complainant appointed M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (CHA), as their Custom House Agent to complete all the formalities and to take safe delivery of the consignment on behalf of the Complainant.  It is alleged that the Complainant in their routine practice appointed M/s. R.R. Nayak & Co., the Surveyor for supervising and surveillance clearance and delivery of the said consignment from 13A and 14 Indira Docks Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai.  M/s. R.R. Nayak & Co. conducted its survey and supervise on 09/06/08, 10/06/08, 11/06/08, 12/06/08 and 14/06/08 and noted that majority of bundles wire’s were broken and that crane rails were in loose condition and crane rails pieces were found rust stained at places. In the presence of the Surveyor out of 49 bundles, 35 bundles were cleared and loaded into lorries for onward dispatch to final destination.  The details of the dispatches are mentioned in the survey report dtd.02/06/08.  The Surveyor confirmed that 14 bundles (42 pieces) were not traceable and found short at the time of taking delivery.  The copy of the survey report issued by M/s. R.R. Nayak and Co. is marked as Exh.‘D’.

 3)        It is the case of the Complainant that as 14 bundles (42 pieces) were delivered short in the consignment, the Complainant’s CHA i.e. M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. by their letter dtd.17/06/2008 requested to Opposite Party to appoint the Surveyor for assessing the loss. The Opposite Party appointed M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. for carrying out the preliminary survey and to asses the loss and to issue the survey report.  Letter to Opposite Party issued on behalf of Complainant by M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (CHA) dtd.17/06/08, marked as Exh.‘E’.  According to the Complainant, M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. carried out the survey at 13A & 14 Indira Dock of the said consignment and noticed the shortage. It is alleged that M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. confirmed that 14 bundles (42 pieces) of the consignment in question were not available in the port for delivery.  It is the case of the Complainant that M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. assessed the surveyed loss suffered by the Complainant but did not submit their preliminary survey report. According to the Complainant, the material was required for the intended purpose and the Complainant was under pressure from port to clear cargo, save demurrage and prevent further loss of crane rails, therefore, the Complainant appointed M/s. Wilson Surveyor and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. who is also IRDA licensed surveyor to carry out the survey as goods were to be cleared.  Accordingly, the Complainant informed the Opposite Party on 04/07/08. The Complainant’s CHA vide their letter dtd.03/07/08 informed the Opposite Party regarding appointment of the Surveyor M/s. Wilson Surveyor & Adjuster Pvt. Ltd. for assessment. The said letters were received by the Opposite Party and the same are marked as Exh.‘F1 & F2’. Then in the presence of M/s. Wilson Surveyor & Adjuster Pvt. Ltd., 35 pieces against 42 pieces were cleared from the Port premises.  It is alleged that M/s. Wilson Surveyor & Adjuster Pvt. Ltd. surveyed and assessed the loss and issued their Survey Report dtd.07/07/08 which is marked as Exh.‘G’.

 4)        The Complainant submits that the cost of 14 bundles (42 pieces) of size QU 120 is USD 53678.24 i.e. (Rs.21,73,968/-) which was delivered short and was not traceable at the port area.  It is submitted by the Complainant that to minimize the loss, the Complainant cleared 35 pieces which were of difference size, quality, quantity and value from the Port area i.e.7 pieces of size QU100 and 28 pieces of size QU 80 valued USD 25051.24 (Rs.10,14,575/-).  It is submitted by the Complainant that thus, the Complainant suffered a loss of USD 28626.76 (USD53678.24 – USD25051.24) i.e. Rs.11,59,394/-.  According to the Complainants it suffered total loss of Rs.12,90,495/-(Rs.12,82,468/- loss suffered as per claim bill submitted to the Opposite Party and Rs.8,027/- towards demurrage charges. It is alleged that the Complainant on 26/07/08 duly lodged its claim upon the Opposite Party alongwith all the original documents and claimed a sum of Rs.12,82,468/-.  The copy of it is marked as Exh.‘I’.  According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party by letter dtd.16/06/09, 06/11/09 & 26/02/2010 repudiated the claim of the Complainant by informing as follows –

1.      M/s.Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vide their letter Ref.No.DB/DSPL/dated 17/06/2008 seeking the appointment of Surveyor to assess the loss of damaged cargo.

2.      The office had appointed P.M. Patel & Co. to assess the loss of cargo, but  we regret that the loss was assessed by other Surveyor i.e. Wilson Surveyor & Adjuster Pvt. Ltd.

   It means there is deviation in appointment of Surveyor. 

According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party accepted the Survey Report of M/s. R.R. Nayak & Co. and M/s. Wilson Surveyor & Adjuster Pvt. Ltd. which are licensed

Surveyors and are expert and competent to survey and assess the loss.  It is alleged that there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.  It is submitted that the Surveyor M/s. P.M. Patel and Co. was appointed by the Opposite Party for the preliminary survey report, it ought to have issued immediately preliminary survey report after conducting the survey as the Surveyor thereafter will have to issue their Final Survey Report within 30 days as per the code of conduct laid down by the Regulatory Authority, Sec.9(2) of IRDA (protection of Policy holders’ interests) Regulations 2002. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant had requested several times to the Surveyor M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. to issue preliminary survey report as the consignment was lying at Mumbai Port Trust and incurring demurrage.  The Surveyor of Opposite Party M/s. P.M. Patel and Co. after laps of 72 days called for the documents for issuance of Preliminary Survey Report which itself is violation of IRDA Rules and Regulations.  It is submitted that the Opposite Party failed to submit any documentary evidence to quash the survey reports issued by M/s. R.R. Nayak and Co. and M/s. Wilson Surveyor & Adjusters. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party wrongly repudiated the claim of the Complainant on false and flimsy grounds which itself is violation of terms & condition of policy.

 5)        The Complainant therefore, prayed that the Opposite Party be held and declared guilty for deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice under the provision of the said Act. It is prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to reimburse, repay the claim amount of Rs.12,90,495/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim dtd.26/07/08.  The Complainant has also prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs.2 Lacs towards compensation and mental agony and torture.  The Complainant has also prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of this complaint.

 6)        The Opposite Party was initially marked as ex-parte, however, by the application dtd.22/10/2010, the Opposite Party prayed for setting aside ex-parte order.  The Complainant submitted that the ex-party order may be set aside subject to payment of cost.  Accordingly ex-parte order appears to be set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and written statement of Opposite Party was taken on record. 

 7)        The Opposite Party in the written statement contested the claim of the Complainant.  It is contended that the Complainant had taken Specific Voyage Policy against all risk on 17/06/08.  The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to depute a Surveyor for assessing the loss, accordingly, the Opposite Party deputed M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. Surveyor & Assessor for conducting preliminary survey of the Consignment.  It is contended that the Complainant failed to co-operate with M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. the Surveyor & Assessor and thus, the Surveyor was unable to issue survey report.  According to the Opposite Party, the Complainant submitted survey report dtd.07/07/08 issued by M/s. Wilson Surveyor & Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. alongwith its claim.  Hence, there was deviation in appointment of Surveyor and therefore, the Opposite Party closed the file of the Complainant as “No Claim” vide letter dtd.06/11/09 which is marked as Annexure ‘M’ to the complaint.

 8)        It is contended that the Complainant has not disclosed any cause of action as the Complainant themselves have committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy.  The complaint is therefore, not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  It is denied by the Opposite Party that Mumbai Port Trust Authorities were insisting that the Complainant should lift 35 pieces and clear the port area.  The Opposite Party has also denied that the Complainant in order to minimize the loss agreed to clear 35 pieces as an offset against their imports.  It is denied that uncleared consignment was attracting heavy demurrage to the Complainant on a daily basis.  It is contented that M/s. P.M. Patel and Co. Surveyors and Assessors have acted as per the procedure laid down as per Code of Conduct set for Surveyors by Regulatory Authority i.e. I.R.D.A.  The Opposite Party does not aware that the survey of the said consignment was carried out by M/s. Wilson Surveyor and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd.  The Opposite Party contended that it is denied that the Complainant paid Rs.8,027/- towards demurrage charges for the consignment for the period 20/06/08 to 04/07/08 to the Mumbai Port Trust. The Opposite Party denied that the Complainant had suffered loss of USD 28626.76 i.e. Rs.11,59,394/-.  It is also denied that the Complainant had suffered total loss of Rs.12,90,495/-. It is contended that the Opposite Party by their letter dtd.16/06/09 rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant as it does not fall within the purview of the policy terms & conditions.  The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant failed to submit the requisite documents called from the Surveyors and Opposite Party has assessed the claim of the Complainant as per the guidelines issued by I.R.D.A. to conduct the insurance business in India.  It is contended that the Opposite Party by its letter dtd.26/02/2010 rightly rejected the claim of the Complainant as the claim does not fall within the purview of the policy.  It is denied that the Opposite Party have caused great mental agony and torture to the Complainant and rejected the bonafide claim of the Complainant.  It is submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs against the Opposite Party.  It is therefore, prayed that the complaint against the Opposite Party may be dismissed with cost.

 9)        We heard Ld.Advocate Mr. A.J. Gondwal, for the Complainant and Ms. S.S. Dwivedi, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party. Shri.Gondwal, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant submitted that as per the document at Exh.‘J’ collectively i.e. letter dtd.28/08/08 issued by M/s. P.M. Patel & Co., it has specifically in para 2 has mentioned that “The consignment consisted of 49 bundles and were available for survey at 13A & 14 Indira Dock.”  It is also mentioned in the said letter that “we attended the survey and had taken note of shortage noticed and also took note of cross delivery as the vessel carried similar consignments.”  It is submitted that the said letter is addressed to the Complainant.  As per the aforesaid letter, the documents which are called by the Surveyor were already submitted by the Complainant vide its letter dtd.26/07/08 as per Exh. ‘I’ to the Opposite Party.  It is submitted that in Exh.‘J’ i.e. letter issued by M/s. P.M. Patel & Co., it was informed to the Complainant that they had attended the survey and had taken note of shortage notice. Shri. Gondwal, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant submitted that in the report of M/s. Wilson Surveyor and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. filed at Exh.‘G’, the loss sustained by the Complainant has been specifically pointed out to the tune of USD 28226.76.  In the claim lodged to the Opposite Party vide Exh.‘I’, the Complainant has claimed the same. He thus, submitted that the Opposite Party has wrongly repudiated claim vide letter at Exh.‘L’ dtd.16/06/09 and 06/11/09.  Shri. Gondwal, the Ld.Advocate made submission that as held in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  V/s. Sukhdham India Pvt. Ltd. “if the Surveyors appointed, but not even one submitted the report and also failed to effectively, controvert claim put forth by the Complainant”, the National Commission in the case referred above reported in I (2011) CPJ 112 (NC) held that the order of State Commission is required to be upheld.  Ld. Advocate Shri. Gondwal, submitted that in the present case also there are similar facts and on this count the Complainant is entitled for the claim made in this complaint.  He also relied the observation in the case of Shri Krishna Woollen Mills Pvt. V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2006) CPJ 20 (NC) and submitted that the claim made in this complaint by the Complainant may be allowed against the Opposite Party.  

 10)      The Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party Smt. S.S. Dwivedi, submitted that the Opposite Party had appointed M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. to asses the loss and the cargo but that the loss was assessed by other Surveyors i.e. M/s. Wilson Surveyors & Adjuster Pvt. Ltd. and the Complainant lodged the claim on the basis of the report of the said Surveyor.  She submitted that the Complainant by its own act without the consent of the Opposite Party deviated the appointment of the Surveyors. She submitted that the Opposite Party has therefore, rightly vide letter dtd.06/11/09 informed the Complainant that they are unable to entertain the claim of the Complainant and close the file as “No Claim”.  She made submission that there is breach of the Insurance Act on the part of the Complainant and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 11)      While considering the rival contentions it is necessary to consider that whether the Complainant has any authority to appoint other surveyor when the Opposite Party had appointed Surveyor M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. on 17/06/08, in view of the report or the letter issued by M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. to the Opposite Party dtd.17/06/08 who was appointed by the Complainant as their Custom House Agent (CHA) to complete all the formalities and take safe delivery of the consignment on behalf of the Complainant. As per the provision of Sec.64 UM (3) of the Insurance Act, the Surveyors are appointed by Insurance Co. under the provision of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance.  In the present case it appears that the Complainant during the period of appointment of Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party i.e. M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. to make preliminary survey and when its appointment was in existence immediately on 04/07/08 vide letter dtd.Exh.‘F-1’ informed to the Opposite Party that “they have appointed M/s. Wilson Surveyors & Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. for assessment and they will submit their report shortly”. The CHA of the Complainant i.e. M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. issued letter of appointment to M/s.Wilson Surveyors& Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. as per Exh.‘F-2’. It appears that thereafter, M/s. Wilson Surveyors & Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. gave report of the shortage and the quantum of loss sustained by the Complainant as per Exh.‘G’. The Complainant thereafter submitted the claim for shortage to the Opposite Party on 26/07/08 as per Exh.‘I’.  It is the fact that as per Exh.‘J’ on 28/08/08 M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. informed the Complainant that they attended the survey and had taken note of shortage noticed and requested the Complainant in order to furnish preliminary survey report, the Complainant should submit the following documents.  In the said letter it was also informed that they had asked for the said documents to the Complainant but till 28/08/08 the same are not received and therefore, by the letter at Exh.‘J’ they requested the Complainant to furnish the documents as earliest. The said documents were - 1. A copy of Commercial Invoices.

2. A copy of B/Ls.

3. A copy of Packing Lists.

4. Weighment Receipts of Tare & Gross weight of truks.

5. A copy of Bills of Entry filed.

            By the said letter M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. informed the Complainant that they are looking forward to receive the aforesaid documents on priority to enable them to release their Preliminary Survey Report against payment of their fees.  It is pertinent to note that the Complainant in reply to the aforesaid letter replied as under –

            “We have noted your requirements to prepare report on the survey that you had carried out but please note that we also appointed a marine surveyor M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai who have issued its report.

            Since the assessment of loss has been done and claim submitted, we see no need to supply you the documents called for.                       

We therefore, regret our inability to furnish you the same.”

To this letter M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. vide letter dtd.18/11/2008 again informed to the Complainant that to release their survey fee of Rs.5,515/-. Their appointment was done by your underwriter and as such report is required to be completed as it was instructed to them.  M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. vide letter dtd.18/11/08 also informed that “if they do not receive the documents called for and unable to complete their report, they may have to close the file at their end and inform ‘National Insurance’ accordingly. The Complainant again vide letter dtd.12/01/09 informed M/s. P.M. Patel that they have nothing to add to what they said vide their earlier letter and they may charge the underwriter who had appointed you for the assessment. The Opposite Party thereafter, vide letter at Exh.‘L’ dtd.16/06/09 informed the Complainant that in view of the letter of “M.s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. dtd.17/06/08 seeking the appointment of Surveyor to assess the loss of damaged cargo and they had appointed to assess the loss of cargo and regret that the Complainant had assess the loss by other Surveyors through other Surveyor i.e. M./s. Wilson Surveyor and Adjuster Pvt. Ltd. and there is deviation in the appointment of surveyor.”  The Opposite Party therefore, requested let them know the reason for the same to enable them to proceed further into the matter.  Thereafter vide letter dtd.11/07/2009 the Complainant informed to the Opposite Party that “they have contacted M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. the Surveyor and requested them to arrange the survey of the consignment. After inspection, they asked for documents and survey fees charges.  The complainant informed the Opposite Party that it is the practice of their CHA to arrange party survey in port premises, by an independent surveyor at the time of clearance of imports consignment.  Thus, to avoid double payment of fees, no further follow up was made to M/s. P.M. Patel.  Accordingly, the Surveyor report collected from M/s. Wilson Surveyors & Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. is submitted with claim papers, whom payment of survey fees is already made by us.”  The Complainant also requested the Opposite Party to reply earlier about settlement of their claim.  The Opposite Party vide letter dtd.06/11/09 informed the Complainant that the clarification given by the Complainant is not acceptable to them and therefore, they are unable to entertain their claim and closed the file as “No Claim”.  It is interesting to note that thereafter the Complainant approached M/s. P.M. Patel& Co. vide letter dtd.21/12/09 in which it is contended as follows –

“At the outset, we regret for our stand of not complying with documents you had called vide your letter dtd.28/08/08.  We also regret for not releasing your survey fees as demanded vide your letter dtd.18/11/08.

“It may please be noted that we do not have and had not any knowledge or experience of dealing in claims.  We do not know whether the appointment of other Surveyor as per CHA’s Advice was in order or not. We were made to understand that for marine loss, an independent surveyor can be appointed. 

“We learnt from the underwriter vide their letter dtd.16/11/09 that the claim is denied because they are not satisfied with the explanation given by us and also as the assessment of loss was not done through you and treated it as deviation.  During the process of clearance of consignment you were present throughout and had recorded the facts  We are forwarding herewith following documents as demanded by you vide your letter dtd.28/08/09 and agree to release your survey fee with a request to release your Preliminary Survey Report.”  The Complainant then vide letter dtd.28/01/2010 informed the Opposite Party that “This has reference to your letter No.250800/MAR/ CPT/2009, dtd.06/11/09 on the captioned claim.  At the outset, we regret for our stand of not complying with documents to surveyor appointed by who had called for various documents pertaining to claim vide letter dtd.28/08/08. We also regret for not releasing survey fee as demanded by the Surveyor vide letter dtd.18/11/08.  This was done inadvertently and regret.  

We have noted that the repudiation of our legitimate claim despite our explanation vide our letter dtd.11/07/09 and subsequent letters. Since assessment done by an independent Surveyor appointed by us is not acceptable by you, we have furnished following documents to M/s. P.M. Patel& Co., a Surveyor appointed by your good self who were associated in the process of clearance and had recorded shortage.”  In the said letter it is also informed as under –

            “We are also agreeable to pay survey fees to M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. Kindly advise the surveyor to release his Preliminary Survey Report and oblige us.

            We would now request you to please consider our request of opening the claim file for consideration.” 

The Opposite Party again informed the Complainant by their letter dtd.26/02/2010 as under –

            “With reference to your letter dtd.28/01/2010 received by us on 26/02/2010.  We regret and draw your attention to our earlier letter dtd.06/11/09, and hereby confirm that the circumstances does not warrant changes in our earlier decision.”   

 12)      Considering the aforesaid correspondence between the Complainant and Opposite Party we are of the view that the Opposite Party has rightly informed the Complainant that it had appointed M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. to assess the loss and damage cargo but the Complainant assessed the loss through other Surveyor i.e. M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. and thereby deviated in appointment of Surveyor and rightly informed the Complainant that the clarification given by the Complainant is not acceptable by them and therefore, unable to entertain the claim made by the Complainant and close the file as “No Claim”.  In our view as per the provision of Sec.64UM and particularly Sub Sec.3 & 4 would show that Insurer cannot just as a matter of course. We are of the view that if the report of Surveyor or loss assessor is not acceptable to the Insurer, it must specify reasons but it is not free to appoint second Surveyor.  In our view appointment of second surveyor itself would be a reflection on the conduct of the first surveyor.  It is also the settle position under the Insurance Act, that the surveyor or loss assessor is duty bound to give the correct report.  We therefore, hold that in the present case as the Complainant as per its own whims appoint second surveyor when the appointment of first surveyor was in existence as well as who had not submitted his report to the Opposite Party and without specifying any reasons appointed second surveyor and obtained the survey report from him i.e. M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. itself is wrong on the part of the Complainant. We therefore, hold that the Opposite Party has rightly informed to the Complainant vide letter dtd.26/02/2011 that they regret and draw the attention of the Complainant to its earlier letter dtd.06/11/09 and confirmed that the circumstances does not warrant changes in their earlier decision and are unable to entertain the claim of the Complainant and close the file as “No Claim”.   It is also the legal position that the Surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance.  As discussed above as the Complainant himself has not co-operated with the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party, not paid fees for submission of survey report, we hold that the Complainant himself is guilty by its own conduct. 

13)      The cases relied by the Advocate for the Complainant, in our view are not appropriately applicable to this case. As noted above in the present case the Complainant did not submit the documents as called for by M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. i.e. the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party to assess the loss as alleged by the Complainant.  It appears that the said Surveyor initially orally asked the Complainant to submit the required documents.  Thereafter, vide letter dtd.28/08/08 it called upon to submit the documents as mentioned in the said letter and pay the Surveyor’s fee.  Thereafter, also on 18/11/08 M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. asked the Complainant to submit the documents and release the Surveyors fee of Rs.5,515/-. However, the Complainant denied to co-operate the said surveyor by letter dtd.20/09/08 and 12/01/09.  The Complainant lastly after denial of the claim by the Opposite Party on 21/12/09 i.e. after more than 1 year informed M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. that they are submitting required documents and agree to release their survey fee and requested to release Preliminary Survey Report.  This attitude and conduct of the Complainant in our view is condemnable and therefore, we hold that the cases relied by the Complainant’s Advocate reported in I (2011) CPJ 112 (NC) as well as II (2006) CPJ 20 (NC) cited Supra are not at all helpful to grant the claim made by the complainant against the Opposite Party.  In the present case, it is not the fact that the surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party i.e. M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. has refused to submit its report regarding the loss alleged by the Complainant.  It is also not the fact that prior to appointing the Surveyor by the Complainant i.e. M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd., the appointment of Surveyor M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. was canceled by the Opposite Party.  It is also the fact that the Complainant did not co-operate the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party i.e. M/s. P.M. Patel & Co. and allow him to submit his Preliminary Survey Report. We therefore, hold under such facts and circumstances the claim made by the Complainant is liable to be rejected.  In the result we pass the following order -     

O R D E R

i.                    Complaint No.191/2010 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

ii.                 Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.