-1- This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Gurcharan Singh against the impugned order dated 8.9.2015 passed by the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, State Commission) in First Appeal No. 751 of 2015. . Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had taken a motor insurance policy which was 2 valid from 6.8.2014 to 5.8.2015. The vehicle met with an accident on 3.9.2014. The vehicle was sent for repairs to the authorized workshop. The surveyor was appointed by the insurance company. The surveyor assessed the total loss of Rs.5,28,000/-. The insurance company had paid Rs.1,50,000/- in advance to start the repair work. However, the workshop repaired the vehicle and submitted bill of Rs.6,29,882/-. The surveyor finally assessed the loss of Rs.5,28,000/-, therefore remaining amount of Rs.3,78,000/- was paid to the complainant. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint bearing no.05 of 2015 before the District Forum making the insurance company as well as repairer and the surveyor as OPs with the contention that the complainant is entitled to get the total money spent on repairs. The District Forum however, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 3.6.2015. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant then preferred Appeal 3. no.751/2015 before the State Commission which was also dismissed vide its order dated 8.9.2015. . Hence, the present revision petition. 4 Respondent no.1 who was the dealer/repairer was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 5.

19.7.2016 by this Commission and none was present on behalf of respondent no.3/surveyor at the time of arguments. Hence, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent no.2/insurance company. . Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Private Car Package Policy was taken from the 6 respondent insurance company with an IDV of Rs.10,56,343/- and the premium of Rs.29,698/- was paid. The complaint was filed against the dealer/repairer as well as against the insurance company. The repair of the vehicle has been carried out on the instruction of the insurance company to the repairer. As it is a Private Car Package Policy, the complainant is entitled for total reimbursement of expenses incurred on such repairs by the authorized dealer/repairer. If the insurance company cannot allow the total claim, the remaining amount should be directed to be given by the authorized dealer/repairer. Both the fora below have not appreciated this aspect and they have dismissed the complaint. The learned counsel further argued that the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of total expenses on repairs which is Rs.6,29,882/-. The insurance company has paid only Rs.5,28,000/- and therefore, remaining amount be ordered to be reimbursed either by the insurance company or by the authorized dealer. . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company stated that 7 there are certain rules and standards and established norms for allowing repair claims and the surveyor has assessed the loss and repair charges only on those norms. Some parts are not fully reimbursed and depreciation is deducted for some parts. Thus, the surveyor has given his report on the established norms of insurance and the same has not been challenged by the complainant/petitioner on any specific ground. The learned counsel further argued that until there are some cogent reasons to dispute the surveyors report, it is to be taken as the basis for settling the insurance claim. The Honble Supreme Court has held this view in many of its judgments. Thus, both the fora below have rightly allowed the claim based on the surveyors report only. . The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company further pointed out that both the 8 fora below have given concurrent findings and in such circumstances, the scope of the revision petition is very limited. This Commission cannot reassess the facts as both the fora below have given concurrent findings of facts. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsel of 9 the parties and have examined the record. First of all, it is seen that the complainant/petitioner has not given any specific objections 10. against the surveyors report and it is the only assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a private car package policy and therefore the total reimbursement of expenditure incurred on the repairs be reimbursed to the complainant. It is the settled view that if the surveyors report is not objected to with a specific objection, the same has to be considered for deciding the insurance claim. The Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, Civil Appeal No.3387 of 2004, has observed the following: decided on 24.8.2009

(22) The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by the insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assess the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or 17damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor made report to the satisfaction of the concerned officer of the insurance company, if for any reason, the report of the Surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report. Scheme of Section 64-UM particularly, of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) would show that the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of the Surveyor is not acceptable to the insurer may be for the reason if there are inherent defects, if it is found to be arbitrary, excessive, exaggerated etc., it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint second Surveyor or Surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. Alternatively, it can be stated that there must be sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of Surveyor/Surveyors. There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for 18 appointment of second Surveyor by the Insurance Company, but while doing so, the insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first Surveyor and the need to appoint second Surveyor.

Similarly, Honble Supreme Court in 11. Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance , has observed that:- Company Limited and Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 777 1. 2.

Insurance- Terms and conditions specified in insurance policy- Binding effect- Insurance policy not covering parts of machinery which were required to be replaced due to normal wear and tear-Held, Insurance Company while assessing claim, rightly excluded those parts- Insurance Act, 1938,- S. 64-UM- Surveyor/Loss assessors report- Weightage to be given- Held, Though not the last word, yet there must be legitimate reason for departing from report- No infirmity found in surveyors report and therefore held, Insurance Company rightly admitted claim as per the report.

On the basis of the above authoritative pronouncements, it is clear that the surveyors report 12. is to be given due importance and this has to be the basis for finalizing the settlement of insurance claim. As no specific objections were raised before the fora below, both the fora below have rightly accepted the report of the surveyor and have ordered dismissal of the complaint for any additional amount. . It is also true that the scope under the revision petition is quite limited when there are 13 concurrent findings given by the fora below. The Honble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme has held the following: Court Cases 286,

23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.

Thus, the facts cannot be reassessed at the stage of revision petition as both the fora below 14. have given concurrent findings of facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any violation of the policy norms by the surveyor while assessing the loss in his report. Thus, no law point is involved in the present matter. Authorised dealer who repaired the vehicle has done his job as per the instruction of the insurance company and as per the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant would have pointed out either those repair works which were not suggested by the surveyor but were carried out by the repairer, then only the repairer would have been made responsible for doing extra works and in that situation, the complainant should have not accepted those works. Similarly, if certain extra items were fitted which were not approved by the surveyor, the same would have not been accepted by the complainant and repairer should have been asked to remove those items. The complainant has accepted the vehicle as repaired by the repairer. The complainant cannot now allege that the repairer should pay the remaining amount of money to the complainant. As repairer is not part of the insurance company, he is not liable to pay any amount in this regard. . Based on the above discussion, I find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional 15 error in the order dated 8.9.2015 passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, R.P. NO. 3306 of 2015 is dismissed with no order as to cost. ...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER