ORDER M.B. Shah, President — Petitioner filed complaint case no.36/2004 before the District Consumer Forum, Saharsa, for a direction to the Insurance Company to reimburse the amount spent for the damage caused to the bus owned by him. It was his contention that while protecting an animal on the road, an accident took place on 16.6.2003 at 6.15 A.M. It is his say that he informed the police regarding the accident. He has also submitted that he had informed the concerned officer of the Oriental Insurance Company on the same day and had submitted insurance claim in due time. On the basis of the complaint, the District Forum by its order dated 14.12.2004 directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,373/- and in case of failure, Insurance Company was directed to pay the same with interest @ 10% per annum. 2. Against that order, the Insurance Company preferred Appeal No.6/2005 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar. That appeal was allowed by order dated 5.5.2005 and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside. However, the Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,225/- on the basis of surveyor’s report with interest @ 8% per annum till realization. Against that order, complainant has filed this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is without considering the fact that the Insurance Company has appointed various surveyors and those survey reports are not produced on record. He further submitted that the damage to the bus, in question, was not properly assessed by the surveyor and there was no reason to disbelieve the say of the complainant that he was required to spent Rs.3,52,373/- for repairs of the bus. 4. As against this, learned counsel Mr. Rawat appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company pointed out that impugned order is just and reasonable. Insurance Company has not appointed many surveyors as contended by the complainant. Only one surveyor, namely, Mr. Ajeet Prashad was appointed after receipt of the information of the alleged accident on 11.8.2003. He contended that prior to that date, no information was given to the Insurance Company with regard to the alleged accident. Even the police has not recorded any FIR for alleged accident. He submitted that there is no justifiable ground not to rely upon the survey report of Mr. He contended that prior to that date, no information was given to the Insurance Company with regard to the alleged accident. Even the police has not recorded any FIR for alleged accident. He submitted that there is no justifiable ground not to rely upon the survey report of Mr. Ajeet Prashad. 5. In our view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent requires to be accepted. There is nothing on record to establish that Insurance Company has appointed many surveyors. There is an affidavit on record to establish that Mr. Jitendra Jha of Saharsa was not appointed by Insurance Company as spot surveyor. Also there is nothing on record to establish that on the date of accident, Insurance Company was informed about the alleged accident. The surveyor has also mentioned, as reported by the insured, that there was no passenger in the bus at the time of damage caused to the bus or at the time of the accident. He has also stated that the Insurance Company has received an information from some of the local persons residing in the village that a bogus claim was lodged by the complainant. On investigation, some persons gave in writing to the surveyor that no accident of any bus has taken place in the village since last year. He has given his opinion as under:- “PHOTOGRAPHS Photographs of vehicle during repair/rebuilding was taken by me in presence of the insured. Close up photo of chassis no. was also taken. All photos are attached with this report. One photo of said pre-dismantled stage of the vehicle on 24.9.2003 taken by complainant and two other photos of pre-dismantled vehicle provided to me by insurer at PTRO are also attached. OPINION- On the basis of my findings as detailed above I have to make following observations:- 1. The sanha was registered with Pipra P.S. by the insured, but no investigation for geneunity of the information was conducted by the police. 2. OPINION- On the basis of my findings as detailed above I have to make following observations:- 1. The sanha was registered with Pipra P.S. by the insured, but no investigation for geneunity of the information was conducted by the police. 2. As stated in the written statement of the insured the vehicle was dismantled from 29.9.2003 and repair taken up from 10.10.2003, thus the photo of 24.9.03 is pre-dismantled stage photo and I didn’t had opportunity to inspect the vehicle in pre or post dismantled stage hence I am not in a position to assesses the loss on my physical observations because of no evident damage at that time, but previous surveyor as stated by the insured Mr. P.K. Sinha did inspect the vehicle in pre-dismantled stage, so, an opinion may be obtained from him regarding damages and it’s type. 3. Local evidences, circumstantial evidence and pre-dismantled stage photos do not give evidence of accidental damages due to overturning, so, in light of these evidences and registration of sanha which has not been denied stating as incorrect hence we have no option but to accept the reporting as correct, but I feel that even if there was a overturning it may be of non effective nature so no accidental damage was evident in photos. 4. I have been informed by both insured and PTRO that a spot report has been issued by surveyor Mr. J. Jha although no deputation has been confirmed from branch office and any other source that report was not provided to me. 5. It is very clear that the amount of claim made appears to be ungenuine, hence insurer may take his decision after collecting more details if required. 6. Assessment of loss possible with in these limited data accepting the fact that accident did take place but of non extensive nature so much so that it was not noticed by even local people thus giving a benefit of doubts to the insured assessment may be as given here under. 7. Complainer’s information do not have sufficient grounds to be accepted in legal terms on it’s own evidences but evidence found during my investigations do appear to confirm the facts of complain. At the same time Sanha reported is also evidence which can not be denied as whole. 7. Complainer’s information do not have sufficient grounds to be accepted in legal terms on it’s own evidences but evidence found during my investigations do appear to confirm the facts of complain. At the same time Sanha reported is also evidence which can not be denied as whole. Thus, in my opinion we may accept that the overturning may have taken place giving advantage of doubts to the insured but pre-dismantled stage photos do not give any visibility to accidental damage still scratching of side beadings & denting of R/H sheets may be considered as caused due to over turning. As the denial of accident by local people has been made, in my opinion it may indicate two things in light of accepting Sanha as true information to police:- a. The vehicle may have been removed by insured before any local people could have taken note of it at the place of accident. Which indicated that the loss may not be of high magnitude, b. The vehicle was in poor condition so it needed thorough rebuilding so no regular service in the route was maintained thus out of mind of casual local people.” 6. In any case, he submitted that even if there is some loss to be reimbursed, at the most, Rs.4,225/- may be awarded. 7. In our view, the complainant has failed to establish that the accident took place and that the bus was damaged due to accident. It is alleged that the accident took place on 16.6.2003 but, from the record it is apparent that information was given to the Insurance Company only on 11.8.2003 i.e. virtually after a lapse of two months. There is nothing on record to establish that because of the accident, the bus was damaged. There was no passenger in the bus, as contended by the complainant. Further, if the accident takes place in the morning at 6.15 a.m., it would be difficult to believe that nobody would have noticed it, that too, in the month of June. It is also to be stated that if the bus has overturned, it would require some persons to bring it out from the ditch. 8. In these set of circumstances, it cannot be held that the order passed by the State Commission is in any way erroneous. In the result, revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. **********