The importance of surveyor reports in the settlement of insurance claims and the principle that claims may be settled on a non-standard basis in case of policy violations.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member. - The present revision has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 2967 of 2007. By way of the impugned order, the appeal preferred against the order dated 04.09.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") in complaint No. 461 of 2006 has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum was upheld.

2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the complainant was the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-67-1882. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party w.e.f. 22.09.2005 to 21.09.2006. On 03.11.2005, the said vehicle met with an accident, consequently, the vehicle was badly damaged. FIR was registered and the opposite party was duly informed. A surveyor was deputed by the opposite party. Meanwhile, the complainant furnished bills totalling Rs. 1,78,000/- incurred for undertaking repairs, however, the claim was not settled despite repeated requests made by him. Aggrieved, the complainant was constrained to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

3. Upon service of notice, the opposite parties contested the claim of the complainant on the ground that the surveyor vide letters dated 06.01.2006 and 25.01.2006 asked the complainant to submit the original Driving License, Registration Certificate, Route permit and copy of the FIR for settling the claim but the complainant failed to submit the above stated documents. The District Forum vide order dated 04.09.2007 ordered as follows:-

"7. For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs. 1,78,000/- to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 12% from 11.03. 2006 till realisation and a sum of Rs. 3,300/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order".

4. Aggrieved, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the learned State Commission. Vide order dated 28.10.2009, the learned State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the learned District Forum.

5. Aggrieved, the opposite party has approached this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the report of the Surveyor, the net loss of the vehicle was to the tune of Rs. 95,445/-, however, both the fora below failed to appreciate the assessment made in the Surveyor Report and allowed the complaint on the basis of bills furnished by respondent. In this regard, it was further submitted that the repair/replacement estimate was prepared by the surveyor after discussion with the owner of M/s. Laxmi Motor Workshop, from whom the respondent himself had also obtained the estimate. However, the respondent finally repaired his vehicle at Chandigarh, which proved more expensive as the damaged vehicle was needed to be transported to Chandigarh. According to the learned counsel, the respondent was under duty to make every effort to minimise the loss but in the present case, the respondent tried to exaggerate the loss with an intention to extract more money from the insurer.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent had committed breach of the policy conditions by carrying 20-22 unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle, which definitely might have contributed to the overturning of the vehicle. It was further stated that the respondent concealed the fact of carrying passengers before the lower fora, thereby suppressing material information.

9. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel placed relia