ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle Tata Seira on 11.11.1993 and had obtained insurance cover from time to time. Vehicle met with an accident on 13.8.1995. The matter was reported to the authorities as also to the appellant. But when the claim was not being settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 3,98,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of this case before the State Commission, damages of Rs. 15,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and found that the order of awarding Rs. 3,98,000 to the respondent/ complainant, cannot be sustained in the light of the Surveyor’s report which had fixed the net liability at Rs. 2,50,000. There is no disputing the fact that the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000. But after two years of its use, replacement cost was assessed at Rs. 3,80,000 and then Surveyor assessed the market value at Rs. 3,50,000 and providing for salvage value of Rs. 1,00,000, the net liability was placed at Rs. 2,50,000. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, drew our attention to letter dated 5.9.2005, wherein the Surveyor has informed the respondent/complainant, followed by their reply which reads as under:
A second inspection of the vehicle will be carried out after all the doubtful parts/assessments of the same are dismantled/removed, for identification of further damages, if any Such inspection should preferably be arranged only after new Body Shell is arranged/ received.
4. This was also followed by a letter dated 27.2.1996, through which the respondent/ complainant informed the appellant to make the vehicle estimate now that the repairs are complete.
5. We also see on record that vide letter dated 24.4.1996, certain material was called for. Then there is a protracted correspondence between the three parties, namely, the insurers, the insured and the repairer. But no amicable way was found out. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that the vehicle could be got released from the garage, i.e., respondent No. 2 before us, only after Rs. 3,00,000 was given to him on specific order dated 25.5.1998 of this Commission.
6. Be that as it may, as held severally by this Commission as also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the report of the Surveyor is an important document which cannot be brushed aside and assessment made therein has to be specifically agreed or rebutted. In the present case, we see no rebuttal on record, except the repair bill raised by the second respondent, which has not been scrutinised by anyone. In these circumstances, we cannot go beyond the loss assessed by the Surveyor. If we see the loss assessed on total loss liability basis, the Surveyor has assessed at Rs. 2,50,000, at page 6 of its report having arrived at the replacement value of Rs. 3,80,000 from nowhere, he arrives at a figure of Rs. 3,50,000 being the pre-mishap market value of the insured vehicle for which we see no ground on record as to on what basis he arrived at the figure of Rs. 3,50,000? The principle of indemnity is to put the insurer in status quo ante. In these circumstances, if replacement value estimated by him at Rs. 3,80,000 and salvage value was assessed at Rs. 1,00,000 then the respondent/ complainant shall be entitled to Rs. 2,80,000. In view of this we direct the appellant to pay Rs. 2,80,000 from two months after the report of the Surveyor along with interest @ 12% p.a. along with cost of Rs. 5,000 awarded by the State Commission. In view of the grant of interest, we see no merit in granting Rs. 15,000 for loss suffered by the complainant in the absence of vehicle. The appellant shall recalculate the interest on Rs. 2,80,000 @ 12% p.a. from two months after the receipt of the report of the Surveyor dated 14.2.1996, along with cost of Rs. 5,000 and shall make the payment after adjusting Rs. 3,00,000 already paid to the respondent/complainant, on the orders of this Commission.
7. All the outstanding payments be made within 6 weeks from the date of passing of this order.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.