Insured car of petitioner on way to Delhi from Gopalganj (Bihar) met with an accident on 14.06.2000 near Ghaziabad, while approaching Delhi. Occupants of vehicle including husband of respondent having sustained, injuries were hospitalized, leaving car unattended at the site. Police was informed of incident by husband of respondent on 15.06.2000, the following day of accident. Injured too were admitted in hospital on 15.06.2000, obviously for simple injuries sustained by them from where they were discharged on 17.06.2000. Insurance company was informed about incident on 19.06.2000. After claim was lodged with insurance company, investigation commenced by Surveyor who, during investigation called upon claimant to make available relevant documents including FIR, driving licence of driver and also clarification as to name of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident, as there was variation about the name of driver in the information that was lodged with police and also claim lodged with insurance company. As these documents were not made available to Surveyor despite persuasion, a communication (Annexure-E) too was issued by Surveyor on 25.09.2000 which was followed by other communication issued by Corporation on 15.11.2000 but all these remained unresponded. Investigator, however, on conclusion of investigation, laid his report before insurance company, which closed the claim file for ‘want of information’ from respondent. This made respondent aggrieved to approach District Forum, which, over-ruling contentions raised on behalf of petitioner – insurance company, accepting claim, directed insurance company to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as assessed by Surveyor along-with interest @ 12% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- too, along-with cost of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded. State Commission too, finding no infirmity with award of District Forum, dismissed appeal of insurance company. It is how insurance company is in revision before us. Since District Forum and also State Commission have based their findings while awarding compensation on report of Surveyor, findings of Surveyor need to be noticed for appreciation of issues under consideration. Though Surveyor held in its report that liability of insurer in case of settlement of loss on ‘repair basis’ was approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- after deduction of salvage value, the said liability was inclusive of liability towards stolen parts too. Had the parts not stolen, liability could have been not more than Rs.1,15,000/-. As insured could not furnish proof for loss of spare parts, it was left to insurer to finally decide about mode of quantum of settlement as for its liability. As noticed above, after car met with accident on 14.06.2000, occupants got themselves admitted in hospital on 15.06.2000, leaving car at the site. A belated information was given to insurance company on 16.07.2000 that while car was left at accident site, many of its components were removed by unscrupulous persons and compensation on that count too, was claimed from insurance company. Communication made by Surveyor and insurance company bears testimony to the fact that despite all communication made by them to provide details about missing parts, name of the driver and also driving licence, that remained unresponded. Though Investigator had assessed damages for Rs. 2,00,000/- on ‘repair basis’, finally concluded that, liability of insurance company would be for Rs. 1,15,000/- on exclusion of value of spare parts and if salvage value was to be deducted therefrom, liability would be reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Assessment of damages, however, made by Surveyor would not ipso facto be construed to be acknowledgment of liability of insurance company, divorced of other attending circumstances of case. Failure of respondent to make available relevant documents including driving licence, RC Book, etc, would render Investigator handicapped to make investigation of claim as to whether the vehicle in question at the material time of accident was being driven by a person who held a valid driving licence to ply the vehicle on road. Respondent was not diligent for her cause as notwithstanding there being variation in names of driver, in information laid before police and insurance company, had chosen not to make these details available to Surveyor and as such, there was every good reason to draw adverse inference against respondent as should the driving licence be not valid, claim would merit rejection on this count alone. Both District Forum and State Commission while accepting claim of respondent, conveniently over-looked these aspects of the issue and also as for quantum of damages as assessed by Surveyor. As impugned order is not sustainable, we allow this revision, setting aside orders of fora below and dismiss complaint. However, there will be no order as to cost.