IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another in order to get favourable report.

Virender Singh, J—Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the appellant), being aggrieved of order/award dated 6.1.2003 passed by J&K State Consumer Protection Commission, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as State Commission whereby directing the appellant to pay Rs.4,97,247 with 9% interest to the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as complainant) has preferred the instant appeal, which already stands admitted after condoning the delay. Execution of the award stands stayed during the pendency of the appeal and a sum of Rs. l,45,175 has also been released in favour of the complainant.

2. Flashback of the facts, in brief, is that the complainant being a migrant from Kashmir had got his residential building situate at Fatehpora, Bungam, District Anantnag (Kashmir) insured with the appellant for an amount of Rs.6,00,000. It was gutted in fire by the militants on the night intervening 2nd/ 3rd of August, 1999. An information was lodged with the concerned police about the incident, upon which, a formal FIR was registered under Section 436 R.P .C. with Police Station Anantnag. The complainant raised the claim with the appellant, upon which,. Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., was appointed to assess the loss, which was assessed to the tune of Rs.4,97,247. He submitted his report to this effect with the appellant. When the matter was not settled by the appellant for a considerable period, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission in July, 2001 asking for the entire insured amount which was opposed on the ground that he was not entitled to any compensation as he himself had hired certain persons to set his house ablaze to manage compensation. The appellant relied upon the report of one Jehlum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd. dated 11.8.2001. However, the appellant appointed another Surveyor namely Omkar Pajnu to re-assess the loss, who, ultimately submitted his report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.l,45,135. The State Commission did not agree with the stand taken by the appellant and ultimately accepted the first report submitted by Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., and directed the appellant to pay Rs.4,97,247 alongwith interest.

3. We have heard Mrs. Wattali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent. The entire record of the State Commission called by us has also been perused minutely being the Court of First Appeal.

4. Mrs. Wattali submits that in case the Court is not in agreement with her with regard to the fact that the complainant himself had engaged certain persons to set his house on fire so as to get his claim indemnified as is the stand of the appellant, throughout, he at least is not entitled to an amount of Rs.4,97,247 as the report received from Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., cannot be relied upon being unsigned. It cannot be read into evidence. In support of her contentions, she relies upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen1 and Noor Jahan Begum v. Abrar Ahmad Khan.2 She goes on to submit that although the complainant was duly informed by the appellant about the report submitted by Jehlum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., yet in all fairness, another Surveyor namely Omkar Pajnu was deputed to make another survey in which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.l,45,135. The contention of Mrs. Wattali is that there was no deficiency of service on the part of appellant as it made all attempts to give just compensation to the complainant and an exorbitant amount has now been awarded by the State Commission relying on an unsigned report of a surveyor.

5. Mrs. Wattali then contends that all the facts were brought before State Commission by adducing evidence, in which even the Divisional Manager representing the Company had also tendered his affidavit in the shape of evidence. She has read over the evidence of that official. Other evidence on record,