JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner heard.

 2.      Rawail Singh Dalbar Singh Randhawa, the complainant, got his vehicle insured for a sum of Rs.10 lakh for the period from 14.10.2005 to 20.12.2006.  During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 26.3.2006 on New Bombay-Ahmedabad road near Thane.  The complainant informed about the accident to the insurance company.  The insurance company deputed its surveyor, who visited the site on 6.4.2006.  The surveyor reported that he found that after reaching the spot, the accidented vehicle was dismantled and its parts were stored on the side of the road.  On enquiry, the complainant informed him that it was difficult to take damaged truck to the shop for repairs.  Consequently, he had dismantled the vehicle.  The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.82,600/-.  However, the grievance is that he had spent a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-.   He bolstered his case with evidence/bills.  The Surveyor assessed the expenditure at Rs.5,63,820/- on the basis of estimate given by the complainant.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- alongwith interest @12% from 13.9.20006 to the complainant and directed that a sum of Rs.1000/- be paid as expenses.

3.      Aggrieved by that order, the insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.82,600/- as per the assessment made by the Surveyor. 

4.      I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  He contended that the Surveyor had assessed the expenditure at Rs.5,63,820/- on the basis of estimate given by the complainant.  He has got the bills.  This clearly goes to show that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.2,20,000/-.  He vehemently argued that the order passed by the District Forum must be confirmed.  It was argued that no reason was given by the State Commission to reject the bills produced by the complainant. 

5.      All these arguments leave no impression upon this Commission.  It is noteworthy that the surveyor assessed the expenditure at Rs.5,63,820/- on the estimate given by the complainant.  It is thus clear that the complainant had given a wrong estimate.  It must be borne in mind that consumer fora is not a lottery, windfall or Russian Roulette.  

6.      Secondly, it was the mistake on the part of the petitioner to dismantle the truck at the place of accident.  There is no ground for dismantling the same till it is seen by the Surveyor.  The petitioner might have spent Rs.2,20,000/- which also includes the dismantle charges as well.  Consequently we are unable to believe the estimate given by the petitioner. 

7.      Moreover, the Apex Court in various authorities has held that the Surveyor’s report has got preponderance over the bills submitted by the petitioner.  In United India Insurance Company Limited and others vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills and others 2000(10) SCC 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:

“7. The appellant had appointed joint surveyors in terms of Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938.  Their report has been placed on the record in which a detailed account of the factors on the basis of which the joint surveyors had come to the conclusion that there was no loss or damage caused on account of fire, was given and it was on this basis that the claim was not found entertainable.  This is an important document which was placed before the Commission but the Commission, curiously, has not considered the report.  Since the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the basis of the joint survey report, the Commission was not justified in awarding the insurance amount to the respondent without adverting itself to the contents of the joint survey report specially the factors enumerated therein.   In our opinion, non-consideration of this important document has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgment passed by the Commission.  The case has, therefore, to be sent back to the Commission for a fresh hearing.”

8.      In D. N. Badoni vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), it was held that it is well settled law that a surveyor’s report has significant evidenciary value unless it is proved otherwise which petitioner has failed to do so in the instant case.  The Surveyor is an independent person.  There is no allegation of any kind against him.  Consequently, I place reliance on the Surveyor’s report and dismiss the revision petition.