IMPORTANT POINT
Report made by Surveyor in discharge of his professional duty should be accepted unless some serious discrepancies/shortcomings are pointed out in same.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.12.2010, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2899/2006, “Rohtas & Anr. versus United India Insurance Co.” & FA No. 47/2007 “United India Insurance Co. vs. Rohtas & Anr.”, vide which, FA No. 2899/2006 filed by the complainant was ordered to be dismissed, whereas FA No. 47/2007 filed by the Insurance Co. was ordered to be accepted and the order dated 08.12.2006, passed by the District Forum, Sonepat in consumer complaint No. 246/2006, filed by Rohtas & Ors. was modified.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Rohtas is proprietor of M/s. Dhabra Trading Company and he had obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party (OP), the United India Insurance Company, valid from 13.01.2004 to 12.01.2005 for the general merchandise stocks at his business premises at Panipat, Haryana, for a sum of Rs.6 lakh. The complainant had a cash credit limit with the Corporation Bank, G.T. Road, Panipat. It is stated that fire took place at the business premises of the complainant on 16.04.2004 between 3AM to 4AM on account of short-circuiting. The said fire was noticed at 3:30AM by a Police petrol party, when they saw smoke come out of the shop. The police officials made a phone call to the fire brigade as well. The factum of fire was reported to the City Police Station also on 16.04.2004 and DDR No. 20 to that effect was registered. The intimation of the fire was also given to the Corporation Bank and the OP Insurance Company on 16.04.2004 itself. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant supplied the ledger and cash book, which was lying with his chartered accountant, to the surveyor. However, the other documents like bills and account books lying in the shop were destroyed in the fire. According to the complainant, goods worth Rs.6,10,000/- were destroyed in the fire, and hence, the complainant was liable to get payment of the insured amount of Rs.6 lakh from the OP Insurance Company. However, the OP sanctioned a sum of Rs.13,941/- only, relying upon the report made by the surveyor. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking payment of the insured amount of Rs.6 lakh alongwith interest for the loss suffered in fire.

3. The consumer complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the surveyor had made its report after verifying the books and documents from the chartered accountant and had assessed the total loss at Rs.28,170/- after making deduction for excess clause etc. The surveyor had recommended payment of Rs.13,941/-, which had been duly accepted by the OP Insurance Company.

4. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, passed their order on 08.12.2006, allowing the consumer complaint and gave directions to the OP Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.6 lakh to the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of the incident, i.e., 16.04.2004. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant as well as the OP Insurance Company filed cross appeals before the State Commission. As stated already, vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed, but that filed by the OP Insurance Company was allowed. The State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum and directed the OP Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.13,941/- only, based on the report of the surveyor. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that they had been regularly furnishing