The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the surveyor's report in settling insurance claims and the need for insurance companies to adhere to the valuation of the insured property at the time of accepting the proposal.

ORDER

Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member.—Aggrieved with the order dated 4.9.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No. 3062 of 2007, this revision petition has been filed by petitioners/opposite parties/Insurance Company.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.6.2004, the respondent/complainant had obtained from the Petitioners a Fire Insurance Policy for the period 23.6.2004 to 22.6.2005 insuring entire building of Rice Mill at Sri Jiwan Nagar for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000 and Furniture Fixtures for Rs. 60,000. On 9.6.2005 the petitioners were reported of an occurrence of storm on 9.6.2005 due to which some roofing sheets of godowns were blown off and damaged. The letter dated 10.6.2005 of the respondent provided the estimate of loss at Rs. 70,000 - Rs. 80,000. On 10.6.2005 itself the surveyor deputed by the Petitioners visited the insured premises and conducted the physical inspection of the damage and counting of the damaged roof sheets was undertaken along with the Respondent No. 2. It was found that 70 tin sheets of the rice godowns and 140 cement sheets of boiler shed and rice sheller/paddy and bardana godown were blown off/damaged by storm. The complainant, accordingly on the same day provided to the surveyor its estimate of loss at Rs. 85,000 by letter dated 10.6.5. Later on, however, the complainant submitted yet another estimate of loss on 1.11.2005, prepared by some Mistry Ram Kishan for 230 tin sheets which was not in accordance with the physical joint inspection by surveyor with the complainant's representative. On the basis of purchase bills and market enquiries the surveyor worked out the cost of roofing sheets etc. at Rs. 79,000 and labour charges at Rs. 5,000. The factory was established on 19.8.2002 and hence the depreciation @ 20% was deducted by the surveyor from the cost of roofing sheets, angles, hooks etc. The salvage of damaged tin sheets was estimated at Rs. 13,650. Thus, loss to building assessed before average clause and excess clause as Rs. 54,550. On the basis of Audited Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2004 the surveyor worked out the value of buildings on the date of loss at Rs. 44,72,300 which is the same amount as mentioned in the claim form signed and submitted by the Complainant. Since the buildings were insured only for Rs. 9,50,000, there was heavy under-insurance in terms of condition No. 10 of the policy and the claim after application of under-insurance was found to be Rs. 11,587. The policy contains an excess clause of Rs. 10,000 (General Exclusion No. 1 of the policy) and after deducting the excess clause the net amount of loss was ascertained at Rs. 1,587 and accordingly the Surveyor submitted his report dated 1.11.2005. The Petitioners examined the Survey Report which was based on actual physical inspection and the audited accounts of the Respondent/complainant. A sum of Rs. 5 was deducted there from by Petitioners towards premium for reinstatement of sum insured in accordance with condition No. 15 of the policy and the balance amount of Rs. 1,582 was paid by the Petitioners through cheque dated 6.2.2006. After 3 months of this settlement, on 1.5.2006, the complainant wrote to the Petitioner that his claim was for a higher amount. The position was duly explained by the Petitioners to the Respondent/complainant by letter dated 4.5.2006. The Respondent/complainant then filed a complaint case on 5.6.2006 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa, (in short 'the District Forum'). The Petitioners made their submissions as above, with relevant documents. The District Forum, vide its order dated 20.9.2007 allowed the complaint as under:

"Therefore, we are of the view that the OPs committed gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practise towards the complainant. Hence, we held the OPs guilty under Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Ac