Heard Counsel for the petitioner who submits before us that the stock records had been destroyed in the fire and the only authentic record of loss is the report dated 17.5.2004 of the Fire and Rescue Station wherein the estimated loss of goods/stock which was destroyed, is stated to be Rs.4 lakhs.  He, therefore, submits that the complainant should have been paid atleast compensation of Rs.4 lakhs as against the compensation awarded by the fora below.

The complainant had, in fact, claimed for Rs.24,99,552/- and the insurance company on the basis of survey report was ready to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,580/- as the actual loss sustained by the complainant.  The District Forum, after perusal of the material on record, came to the conclusion that no authentic document or evidence has been produced by the complainant to discard the survey report, which had recommended payment of Rs.2,03,580/- which the opposite party had offered and the same was not accepted by the complainant on account of which there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The compliant was, accordingly, dismissed. This order was challenged by the present petitioner before the State Commission. 

The State Commission, after examining the entire material on record awarded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs with 9% interest on the same from the date of complaint i.e. 25.11.2004.  It is now well settled that the survey report is an important document to be taken into consideration while deciding the insurance claim.  Keeping in view the said survey report and the fact that no acceptable or authentic documents have been produced by the complainant, the State Commission had ordered payment of Rs.3 lakhs with interest thereon.  Counsel for the petitioner before us has pressed for award of compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on the basis of the report dated 21.5.2009 from Fire Rescue Station.  The said report merely states that the goods destroyed are worth about Rs.4 lakhs.   What was the basis of the calculation arrived at or the supporting material on  the basis of which, the Fire Department came to the conclusion that the goods destroyed were worth about Rs.4 lakhs is not disclosed anywhere.  In the absence of material data in support of the same, we find it very difficult to accept the said report.  It may also be mentioned here that in the said  report dated 21.5.2004 at the end  it is stated “Certified that the information is only in respect of the data as furnished to the department not necessarily full and accurate on any matter contained therein which can be determined only after due investigation by the appropriate agency.” 

In view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction  under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.