ORDER: Oral: Justice Surinder Sarup (retd.). President:- This appeal is against the order of the District Forum, Shimla Camp at Nahan, dated 13.6.2002 whereby the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to indemnify the respondent to the extent of Rs. 2,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have gone through the record. The facts are not in dispute as pointed out in the impugned order. The only submission made before us on behalf of the appellant is that the amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs. 1,48,500/- was the correct assessment of the loss actually caused due to the theft of the insured vehicle which was admittedly never recovered. It has also been pointed out that this was the amount agreed to be paid by the Insurance Company to the respondent. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on a decision of the National Commission in the case of Ajay Gupta v. The Manager, Allahabad Bank & ors., II (2001) CPJ 13 (NC). Our attention has been drawn to para-8 of the report of the said case and we find that the observation that the Surveyors are the best persons to assess the loss, has been qualified therein to the extent that in the said case before the National Commission, the assessment was done by the Surveyor after detailed scrutiny of the facts and also after taking into account the evidence by the Surveyor of the insured in that case. However, this bring is of no avail in the facts of the present case. A bare perusal of the survey in report indicates that he nowhere associated he respondent in the exercise carried out by him for survey etc., while coming to the inclusion that the loss in the prevent case was Rs. 1,50,000/-. Therefore, it would lot be safe to rely on the amount assessed by the Surveyor herein. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.