JUDGMENT : VINEETA RAI, - Syed Mohammad Anzarul Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner'), has filed the present revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a proprietor of Nawab Boot House and Nawab Readymade Shop running from a single' premises at Begusarai and dealing with the sale of readymade garments, shoes, chappals etc. He got his premises with the goods therein insured from the Respondent/Insurance Company for the period from 14.12.1995 to 13.12.1996 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. According to the petitioner in the night between 31.12.1995 to 1.1.1996, a theft was committed in his premises and miscreants removed goods of the value of Rs. 3,36,852/ -. Petitioner lodged an F.I.R. with the police station which thereafter registered a case and the police investigations confirmed the theft. Respondent/Insurance Company in the first instance appointed a Surveyor, M/s Ganesh & Co. which submitted its report on 8.1.1996 confirming that a theft had taken place and also found balance stock to the extent of Rs. 64,360/ -. It further advised that the actual loss should be ascertained by the final Surveyor after checking the records. Respondent/Insurance Company thereafter appointed a second Surveyor M/s Satish Saran & Associates, to whom petitioner handed over all the necessary documents including stock register etc. to enable it to realistically assess the loss. Petitioner was thereafter orally communicated that respondent would consider settling his claim at Rs. 1 lakh only which was also subject to deduction. Petitioner's contention, however, was that he was entitled to receive Rs. 2,86,500/- and despite service of legal notices in this regard, no heed was paid by the respondents. Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking directions that respondents may be directed to pay Rs. 2,86,500/-, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation due to delay in disposal of the case and causing loss to his business. 3. Respondent/Insurance Company had denied the above contentions. According to them, no documents were made available except some purchase memos. Further, as per the Surveyor's finding the site of the shop is such that it cannot store more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs worth of stocks. 3. Respondent/Insurance Company had denied the above contentions. According to them, no documents were made available except some purchase memos. Further, as per the Surveyor's finding the site of the shop is such that it cannot store more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs worth of stocks. As per the purchase memos submitted the average annual sale amounted to Rs. 35,218/ - per month. After taking into account all aspects the Surveyors estimated that the stock at any point of time should be around Rs. 1,75,000/- and after deducting Rs. 64,360/- being the stocks not stolen, the final loss was assessed at Rs. 1,10,640/-. The contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to receive Rs. 86,500/- did not have any basis. 4. The District Forum after hearing both parties dismissed the complaint on the grounds that despite requests of the respondents seeking details of purchase memos, bank statements, stock books etc. as also clarifications in regard to the stock register which was essential to ascertain the actual loss, petitioner did not comply with the above requests and hastily filed the complaint before the District Forum even before the claim was settled/repudiated. District Forum, further observed that even before it the petitioner in "hot haste" filed a box full of documents with respect to his business including two stock books; 36 sheets of photocopy of sale and purchase memos which as per the respondents' contention was manufactured and prepared for the purpose of "winning" this case. The District Forum further observed that without due proof of their authenticity it was not possible to take these documents into evidence especially since they were not produced before the insurance company for settling the claim. Aggrieved by this, State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission is as follows: "The police report, the reports of the two Surveyors clearly establish that the incident of theft was true. While the first Surveyor did not assess the loss for want of registers/ cash memo etc. the second Surveyor after calculations estimated the loss of Rs. 1,10,640/-. In spite of these reports before them, the insurance company have neither repudiated the claim or closed the claim file. It is also not the claim of the complainant (appellant) that the claim has been closed. the second Surveyor after calculations estimated the loss of Rs. 1,10,640/-. In spite of these reports before them, the insurance company have neither repudiated the claim or closed the claim file. It is also not the claim of the complainant (appellant) that the claim has been closed. In such a situation filing of a consumer complaint before the District Forum, before settlement or repudiation of the claim was premature for a consumer complaint. In fact, the indication given in the appeal petition is that the insurance company were considering to settle the claim Rs. 1,00,000/- whereas the complainant (appellant) ,Was entitled to receive Rs. 2,86,500/- as insured amount with compensation for delay. This clearly indicates that the complaint was fileld in haste, to avoid a settlement the claim as Rs. 1,00,000/- only. Since it is an admitted and accepted fact that the claim has not been settled for any amount or repudiated nor the claim file has been closed. Filing a complaint in that situation before the District Forum was not correct. Hence, the District Forum rightly dismissed it as being premature. The District Forum also rightly did not, consider the documents filed before the District Forum because the matter was still to be decided by the insurance company and the District Forum cannot play the role of the insurance company in settling a claim. After careful consideration, we do not find any merit in the appeal to cause intervention in the impugned orders. As such finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed and the impugned orders are sustained. However, in our view the insurance company will be better advised to take a final decision in this claim matter especially in view of their own Surveyor's reports and decide the claim by a reasoned order." 5. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Commission. 6. Shri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for petitioner was present. None was present on behalf of respondents despite notices. 30 days have elapsed since issuance of notice, the service is deemed to be complete and the case was heard ex parte. 7. Counsel for petitioner submitted before us that there was no dispute regarding the theft which has been confirmed by both the police as well as the two Surveyors appointed by the Respondent/Insurance Company. 30 days have elapsed since issuance of notice, the service is deemed to be complete and the case was heard ex parte. 7. Counsel for petitioner submitted before us that there was no dispute regarding the theft which has been confirmed by both the police as well as the two Surveyors appointed by the Respondent/Insurance Company. He also stated that despite a large number of documents having been filed before the District Forum, the forum erred in not assessing the loss on the basis of these documents and merely observed that the Forum was not the insurance company who were to settle the claim. He further stated that despite his best efforts his client was unable to get the relevant documents which had been filed by him before the District Forum which would have fortified his case. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and have gone through the evidence on records. 9. The fact that the theft took place in the petitioner's premises is not in dispute. The fact that Rs. 64,360/ worth of stocks was still found in the premises after the theft is also not in dispute. Regarding the actual loss that occurred which has been assessed at Rs. 1,10,640/-, it has been observed in the report of the second Surveyor that no factual documents were made available except some purchase memos and the assessment of loss, therefore, was done taking into account the location of the shop in a rural area. Its size, local enquiries, the total purchases, average monthly sales and the financial condition of the petitioner. On the basis of this, the insurable loss was assessed at Rs. 1,10,640/-. On a specific query by us, learned Counsel for petitioner has not been able to tell us as to why the necessary documents were not produced before the Surveyors/Respondents. He has brought to our attention the documents that the petitioner had filed before the District Forum which are copies of stock books, running into 132 pages. We have gone through these voluminous documents but it is not possible from these documents to assess what would be the exact amount of goods stolen. We, therefore, requested Counsel for petitioner to help us in identifying those documents on the basis of which we could conclude that the loss which occurred was Rs. 2,86,500/-. We have gone through these voluminous documents but it is not possible from these documents to assess what would be the exact amount of goods stolen. We, therefore, requested Counsel for petitioner to help us in identifying those documents on the basis of which we could conclude that the loss which occurred was Rs. 2,86,500/-. Neither the Counsel for petitioner nor the petitioner who was present in-person was able to identify any such document/documents from the records. These documents therefore, do not help the petitioner in convincing us about the actual loss suffered by him. On the other hand, we have gone through the well-reasoned report of the Surveyor assessing the net loss at Rs.1,10,640/-. It is well accepted that the report of the Surveyor has significant evidentiary value unless proved otherwise. In the instant case, we see no reason to dispute or disbelieve the reasoning of the final Surveyor in reaching the conclusion and are inclined to accept that the loss of Rs.1,10,640/- is a realistic estimate of the goods lost due to theft. 10. On 24.10.2007, this Commission directed the respondent insurance company to deposit Rs. 1 lakh with this Commission within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the order. On 13.11.2007, Counsel for the respondent submitted that he would deposit the sum of Rs. 1 lakh during the course of the day. Petitioner/complainant was put at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1 lakh by executing Personal Bond from the Registry of this Commission. We understand that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh has been withdrawn by the petitioner. But, if by any chance, the amount has not been got released by the petitioner, then the Registry is directed to release the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner along with accrued interest. The petitioner would be entitled to interest on the awarded amount of Rs. 1/10/640/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Respondent is directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% on the sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the date of filing of the complaint till the deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1 lakh on 13.11.2007 and pay the remaining sum of Rs. 10/640/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. 1 lakh from the date of filing of the complaint till the deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1 lakh on 13.11.2007 and pay the remaining sum of Rs. 10/640/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount and the interest amount, as per directions issued, to the petitioner within 8 weeks from today. Petition Dismissed.