IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Surveyor report is an important document and the same cannot be brushed aside unless it is proved contrary.
(2) No cogent and convincing evidence or reason for not relying on the surveyor’s report. No good ground to interfere with the Order of the State Commission in the exercise of this Commission’s revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

1. Learned proxy counsel is present for the petitioner, and requests for yet another adjournment.

Learned counsel for the respondent is present.

The complaint was filed in 2007, the District Commission decided the case in 2007, the State Commission decided the appeal in 2011, the instant petition to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission was filed in 2011, we are now in 2021. A perusal of the proceedings before this Commission shows that the petition has been procrastinated in one way or the other for about a decade. Sufficient opportunity, and more, has been provided to the petitioner to argue its case. We do not deem it apt to delay the matter further.

2. The petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the State Commission’s Order dated 24.05.2011 in appeal no. 3260 of 2007 arising out of the District Commission’s Order dated 05.11.2007 in complaint no. 198 of 2007.

3. We have perused the material on record, including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 05.11.2007, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 24.05.2011 and the petition.

4. The dispute relates to an insurance claim. The facts in brief, relevant for the purpose of disposing the petition, are that the petitioner (the ‘complainant firm’) had taken an insurance policy from the respondent (the ‘insurance co.’) in respect of its business premises. An incident of fire took place on 02.01.2007. The surveyor appointed by the insurance co. assessed the loss at Rs.1,22,082/-. The claim was repudiated by the insurance co. on the ground that the loss suffered by the complainant firm was not within the scope of its policy. The complainant firm filed a complaint with the District Commission.

The District Commission made its appraisal, and, overriding the surveyor’s report, ordered the insurance co. to pay a sum of Rs.7,20,000/-, being the loss claimed on account of the fire by the complainant firm, within 06 weeks of its Order, failing which the said amount shall attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 19.03.2007.

In appeal, the State Commission set aside the Order of the District Commission and ordered the insurance co. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,22,082/-, being the loss assessed by the surveyor, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.04.2007.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance co. submits, on instructions, that the award made by the State Commission i.e. the loss assessed by the surveyor along with the interest awarded by the State Commission has been fully satisfied. The insurance co. does not wish to agitate the State Commission’s Order. It has not filed any revision against the said Order. The insurance co. appointed its surveyor in accordance with Section 64UM of The Insurance Act, 1938. The surveyor discharges its duty. There is no reason to disagree with the surveyor’s assessment.

6. Evidently the insurance co. has decided not to agitate the question of the loss not falling within the scope of the policy (it has not preferred revision before this Commission, and, as submitted, has complied with the State Commission’s award).

As such the short point residual in this case is whether or not the surveyor’s report is reliable.

7. The District Commission in making its appraisal has overruled the surveyor’s report by inter alia relying on an approximate loss of Rs. 9-10 lakh mentioned by the fire brigade officers. The State Commission, inter alia observing that a surveyor’s report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside if there is no cogent and convincing evidence to disbelieve it, found that the fire brigade officers did not examine the record of the complainant firm and assessed the loss on assumption and presumption, while on the other hand the surveyor looked into the account books and other material on the spot after the incident of fire as well as the stock on the date of fire. The State Commission has