1.       This Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment dated 02.04.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2286 of 2005.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a registered partnership firm manufacturing and selling Hard Board under the name and style of M/s Haryana Straw Board Industries. Mr Lalit Goyal is one of the partners of the Complainant firm. Complainant’s factory was situated at Fatehpuria Road, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. Complainant insured its stocks of all kinds of raw material which were used for the manufacturing of hard board and hard straw board, sarson tura, wheat tura, straw of wheat and paddy, rice husk and mustard straw (sarson kurta) etc., valuing Rs.15.00 lakh with the Respondent/Insurance Company. The Insurance Company issued a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.353700/11/04/00070 to the Complainant for the period 14.05.2004 to 31.05.2005. On 25.05.2004, due to high intensity storm, stock which was kept in open in the factory premises was blown away. According to the stock register and other books of account, due to the storm, the stock got reduced from 17203 quintal to 12803 quintal, due to which the Complainant suffered a loss of 4400 qunital of stock.  The Complainant gave intimation of the loss to the Insurance Company on 26.05.2004. The Insurance Company appointed Mr. O. P. Madaan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the insured premises and ascertain the loss suffered by the Complainant. On the basis of the documents furnished by the Complainant, the Surveyor gave his report to the Insurance Company assessing the loss at Rs.51,653/-. The Complainant stated that it was not provided with the survey report, though it was provided with the assessment of loss. Complainant parallelly got a survey conducted by an another Surveyor, Shri S K Jain, who assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs.3,69,325/-. The Insurance Company, however, settled the claim at Rs.51,653/-, vide letter dated 19.07.2004. Dissatisfied with the settlement of the insurance claim at Rs.51,653/-, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 422 of 2004 before the District Forum, Sirsa with the following prayer:

1. The respondent be directed to make payment of sum of Rs.3,63,000/- to the complainant on account of losses suffered by the complainant;

2. The respondent be further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of causing him unnecessary harassment, hardship, fatigue, inconvenience, mental tension, pain, agony, stress, disappointment and displeasure;

3. To allow the cost of the proceedings to the tune of Rs.5000/- by accepting the complaint in its entirety; and

4. Any other relief, in addition to all above or in the alternative to which the complainant is found entitled by the Hon’ble Forum, may also kindly be granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

    

    

3.       Complaint was resisted by the Respondent/Insurance Company.  After hearing the parties, the District Forum, vide its order dated 30.09.2005, allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondent/Insurance Company as follows:

“Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondent/ insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainant with costs of proceedings to the tune of Rs.2,500/- within a period of one month, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs,3,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present complaint till its realisation. The demand of compensation declined because the aforesaid relief granted by us is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly”.

4.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Respondent – Insurance Company preferred Appeal no.2286 of 2005 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide its order dated 02.04.2012, observed as under:

“For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is modified with the directions to the appellant-opposite party to pay Rs.51,653/- to the respondent- complainant without any further delay”.

5.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order of the State Commission.

6.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that due to high intensity of storm on 25.04.2005, the Complainant suffered huge loss. He immediately informed the Insurance Company about the incident on 26.05.2012. On assessment, the Insurance Company informed the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.51,653/- was payable towards the loss and asked the Petitioner to sign the voucher in full and final settlement, though he had suffered a loss of Rs.3,63,000/-. The Petitioner accepted the same under protest. It was further submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking, one sided order and based on non-application of mind and therefore, the same needs to be set aside. Further, the State Commission relied upon the Surveyor’s report of the Insurance Company and totally discarded Report of the Surveyor appointed by the Petitioner. The State Commission, without assigning any reasons, set aside the order of the District Forum, which was based on appreciation of facts, evidence, documents and law.

7.       On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the claim of the Petitioner was thoroughly scrutinised by the Insurance Company and after observing all the required formalities, the claim was settled. It was further submitted that the Complainant was informed that its claim had been settled for Rs.51,653/- and the Petitioner accepted the same, though under protest. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company stated that the Complainant was provided with the details of the assessment made by the Insurance Company on 05.08.2004. Hence, there was no deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company in settling the claim.

8.       The core issue relates to the quantum of loss. Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.51,653/- and the Surveyor deputed by the Complainant assessed the loss of Rs.3,68,325/-. Mr. O.P. Madaan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who visited and inspected the place of incident in the presence of the Complainant and thereafter gave his report. Report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and it has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, provided there is cogent evidence otherwise. In the present case, the Petitioner did not lead any evidence disproving the report submitted by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company. Surveyor deputed by the Complainant assessed the loss in the absence or knowledge of the Opposite Party. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the report submitted by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company is to be accepted. Whatever relief the Petitioner was entitled, has been given by the State Commission.

9.       In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the State Commission had correctly relied on the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company and allowed the claim to the tune of Rs.51,653/-. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.