Complainant/petitioner got his tent and bister house with the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs.7 Lacs. During the validity period of the policy, the shop caught fire resulting in huge loss to the petitioner and the petitioner lodged a claim for Rs.7 Lacs which was repudiated by the respondent insurance company. The respondent insurance company appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.1,60,800.   The respondent agreed to pay a sum of

-2-

Rs.1,17,900/- in place of Rs.7 Lacs assessed by the second Surveyor which was accepted by the petitioner under protest.  Petitioner, thereafter, filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,82,100/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f 23.4.2004 till payment.

          Dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which was partly allowed.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to the sum of Rs.1,60,800 only as assessed by the Surveyor.

          Since the petitioner had already been paid the sum of Rs.1,17,900/-, the respondent was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.42,900/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  We have gone through the report of Sh. S. P. Goyal, Surveyor.  The Surveyor in his report has stated that the petitioner failed to

-3-

cooperate and produce the documents which he was asked to produce relating to the purchase and sale of the material in question.  The report submitted by the Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and it has to be given its due weight and accepted unless some cogent evidence is produced to rebut the same.  No such evidence has come forth.  Revision petition is dismissed.  No costs.