ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Both these appeals arise from a common order passed by the State Commission. Appellant (in F.A. No. 441/1997) was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondent/complainant (appellant in F.A. 363/97) had filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and the Carrier M/s. Southern Roadways.
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a trader dealing in trading of handicrafts and artifacts. After he received an order, he supplied 9 specialized wooden carvings on 23.12.1992 to one Mr. D. Vasu of Ad-India, at Pondicherry allegedly valued at Rs. 3,41,000 in all. For the transporting the goods from the complainant’s premises he hired the services of M/s. Southern Roadways, Madurai for transporting the said goods to be given to the consignee. The material was also insured with the appellant company for the relevant period. When the goods were delivered to the consignee, on opening the consignment they were found to be damaged. The matter was reported by the consignee to the consignor/complainant, who in turn reported the matter to the appellant company who appointed a Surveyor who submitted his preliminary report on 7.1.1993. A detailed survey report was also filed by the Surveyor appointed by the appellant on5.3.1993. Yet when the matter was not getting settled despite repeated requests and issue of notice this complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 3.41 lakh along with interest @ 12% from 2.1.1993 till payment along with Rs. 2,000 as cost. The carrier was absolved of any liability.
3. Aggrieved by this order, appeal has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the carrier M/s. Southern Roadways. It is important to note that the respondent/complainant had also filed a complaint and had engaged Mrs. N. Annapoornani as the Counsel in both the appeals (First Appeal No. 363/1997 and 441/1997). She was also present but did not argue for want of instruction from the respondent/complainant, Mr. P. Kandasamy and Anr.
FA. 441/1997
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record, we find that the bask facts are not disputed, hence not being reproduced, It is not in dispute that 9 carvings valued at Rs. 3.41 lakh were sent. The consignee received this material but upon opening the consignment found certain pieces defective. We have on record the report of the first Surveyor dated 7.1.1993 in which he has brought out the condition of each of the carving. The detailed report of the Surveyor has clearly stated that while six carvings are beyond repairs, two could be repaird, and there was no damage to one carving. The Surveyor has also arrived at the values of these by obtaining a quotation. According to him even though the quotation stated the value of six full damaged carvings at Rs. 1,77,500 but he goes on to value them at Rs. 1,38,432 basing this on his own opinion. With this as the basis, and after adding the cost of repair of two pieces and reducing the scrap value of six pieces he assessed the loss at Rs. 1,39,432. This report was before the State Commission. State Commission has not cared to deal with this report and also has not spelled out the grounds for not relying upon the report of the Surveyor.
5. It is settled position of law, as severally held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the report of the Surveyor is an important piece of document and evidence, which cannot be brushed aside lightly. In this case State Commission has just not dealt with the report at all. In fact, in our view, the State Commission seems to have acceded its jurisdiction in granting full value of the consignment without caring to know that even as per the complainant as well as the consignee one piece was not damaged at all. In the present circumstances the State Commission did not care to give any ground to disagree with the report of the Surveyor. This report was also available with the complainant before the State Commission yet we see nothing on record to rebut the findings/recommendations of the Surveyor.
6 Thus, relying upon the report of the Surveyor, we go on to assess the loss for which the complainant needs to be compensated. We are inclined to take the cost of the six damaged carvings at Rs. 1,77,500 and we would like to assess the loss based on this valuation, and not on Rs. 1,38,432 arrived at by the Surveyor for there is no basis for the Surveyor to reduce this amount from the valuation obtained through the quotation. In view of this, the complainant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,78,500 on the basis of valuation of six damaged pieces at Rs. 1,77,500 plus Rs. 3,000 of the cost of repair of the two wooden carvings and less the scrap cost of six wooden carvings placed at Rs. 2,000.
7 In view of the above, the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,78,500 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from two months after the date of receipt of the report of the Surveyor and cost of Rs. 2,000 as awarded by the State Commission. Admittedly, since there was no stay granted by this Commission, the appellant has already paid Rs. 2.5 lakh to the respondent/complainant sometime in 1997. Hence, after recalculating the amount due for payment on the above basis, the appellant shall pay the balance amount, if any, within a period of six weeks. It is made clear that interest on the decreed amount shall run upto the date when Rs. 2.5 lakh was paid by the appellant to the complainant.
8. This appeal is filed by the complainant before the State Commissioner. Prayer in this appeal is to increase the rate of interest to 18% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. awarded by the State Commission as also allow compensation.
9. After hearing the parties, we find no merit in these two pleas. Rate of interest is as per settled position as the prevailing rates of interest were lower than the one awarded by the State Commission. In view of the fact that interest @ 12% p.a. has been granted on the decreed amount. In our view no ground exists for graning any compensation.
10. This appeal has no merit, hence dismissed.
11. Both the appeals stand disposed of in above terms.