Complainant/Petitioner who is owner of vehicle bearing No. KA-05-MK-315 insured the same with the Respondent insurance company for the period from 29.12.2003 to 28.12.2004. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 01.05.2004. Respondent insurance company on being informed appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,06,037/-. However, the claim was not settled. Aggrieved by this Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 7,06,037/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor. Respondent accepted the order of the District Forum and did not challenge the same by filing an appeal. Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission on the ground that the vehicle in question i.e. Honda CRB was a new vehicle and the amount required to get the vehicle repaired would be more than Rs. 13,43,083/- and, therefore, he is entitled to the said amount by way of compensation. In the meanwhile Petitioner had got the vehicle dismantled. State Commission while observing that the Petitioner failed to produce any evidence regarding his version that he dismantled the vehicle on the asking of the Respondent and further that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,06,036/- disposed of the appeal by awarding the said amount along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization. It was also observed that the Petitioner had failed to produce any acceptable evidence to show that the actual amount to get the vehicle repaired would be more than Rs. 13,43,083/- as the Petitioner had failed to file affidavit of the person who prepared the estimates of Rs. 13,43,083/-. It was held that it was better to rely upon the surveyor report as the insurance company has filed the affidavit of surveyor in proof of the report. We agree with the view taken by the fora below. The surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 7,06,037/-. According to the Petitioner amount required to get the vehicle repaired was more than Rs. 13,43,083/-. Petitioner produced the estimates of the costs of repair from M/s Penisular Honda. Petitioner, filed the estimates of repair by the repairer but it did not file the affidavit of the person who prepared the estimates. In the absence of the affidavit of the person who prepared the estimates it is not possible to rely upon the estimate cost prepared for carrying out the repair. The report prepared by the surveyor is an important piece of evidence which has to be given its due weight. Though the report of the surveyor is not sacrosanct and can be displaced by leading a cogent evidence but in the absence of any evidence to displace the report it has to be relied upon and accepted. Since the Petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that the actual cost to get the vehicle repaired was more than Rs. 7,06,037/- it is not possible for us to record a finding to that effect. Moreover, the Petitioner got the vehicle dismantled and has not got the vehicle repaired. The actual loss has not been proved. Reimbursement of the loss on the basis of estimate cannot be ordered. Dismissed. The Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,06,037/- to the complainant along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization within a period of eight weeks from today. In case the Respondent fails to pay the same Petitioner would be at liberty to move an application under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act to get the order enforced.