ORDER (Per : C.C. Pant, Member) : This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.08.2006 passed by the District Forum, Rudraprayag, allowing the consumer complaint No. 04 of 2006 and directing the opposite party No. 1 – The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Umesh Chandra Kandpal is the owner of a shop in the name and style of M/s. Kandpal Vastra Bhandar, Vijay Nagar, Agaustmuni, District Rudraprayag. He had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, Agaustmuni – opposite party No. 2 for his business and has got the shop insured with the opposite party No. 1 – The Oriental Insurance Company Limited for sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- against fire and allied perils, burglary, housebreaking etc. for the period from 09.11.2004 to 08.11.2005. On 21.07.2005, debris and flood water entered into his shop due to a cloud burst, causing damage to the shop and stock kept in it. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the incident on 23.07.2005. According to the complainant, the insurance company deputed a surveyor who visited site on 29.07.2005 and found that the said incident had caused damage to the shop and stock kept in it. The insured estimated the loss at Rs. 1,30,000/- and submitted a claim accordingly with the insurance company. But the insurance company despite the fact that the incident was a genuine one causing damage to the shop and its stock, repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim was found false and fabricated. On filing a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the District Forum allowed the same vide its order dated 22.08.2006 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. The main objection of the appellant in this case is that the complainant is not a consumer because the goods in question were purchased for resale and, therefore, the dispute can not be adjudicated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. The main objection of the appellant in this case is that the complainant is not a consumer because the goods in question were purchased for resale and, therefore, the dispute can not be adjudicated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The second objection is that the complainant has nowhere stated in the consumer complaint that the goods were purchased for self-employment. After the final hearing of the consumer complaint on 21.06.2006, the District Forum had fixed 26.06.2006 for pronouncement of the judgment. But the complainant filed an application on this date praying for making an amendment in the consumer complaint. The District Forum, without giving an opportunity to the opposite parties, allowed the application for amendment in the consumer complaint to the effect that the complainant was carrying on the business of purchase and sale of the cloth for the purpose of self-employment and the same was incorporated accordingly in the consumer complaint. The appellant has also submitted that the District Forum has totally ignored the findings of the surveyor deputed by the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant and the bank reiterated the facts of the case. 6. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. On the point of the maintainability of the consumer complaint, the District Forum has given its finding and we also agree to it because the complainant is the proprietor of the firm and he has taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- under a scheme of the bank for petty business. Even if the complainant had not prayed for amendment in his consumer complaint, the facts of the case are sufficient to prove that he was carrying on the business for self-employment. Therefore, the objections raised by the appellant in respect of the maintainability of the consumer complaint and the amendment on the date when the order was to be pronounced, are not tenable. But we agree that the District Forum has erred in the evaluation of the facts of the case. The surveyor’s report has a significant role in such cases and the report can not be ignored unless and until it is proved that the report is erroneous. The District Forum has wrongly stated that the surveyor has assessed the loss at sum of Rs. 1,24,000/-. The surveyor’s report has a significant role in such cases and the report can not be ignored unless and until it is proved that the report is erroneous. The District Forum has wrongly stated that the surveyor has assessed the loss at sum of Rs. 1,24,000/-. In fact, this is the loss estimated by the complainant. The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 24,913/-. The surveyor has not said in his report that the incident of cloud burst had not occurred. What he has recommended is that since the claim seems to be doubtful and hence the same is liable to be dropped. 7. Unfortunately, the appellant without applying its mind, accepted the recommendation of the surveyor and repudiated the claim accordingly. We are of the view that the surveyor should give his findings only and should not make any recommendation in respect of the claim. It is the insurance company which should decide whether the claim is genuine or not. In the instant case, the incident of cloud burst is without any doubt because the District Administration has also confirmed it and the name of the complainant is among the person who were affected by the said incident. But at the same time, the surveyor’s finding is that on his visit to the site of incident on 26.07.2005, he found that the complainant’s shop was in good condition and it was full of stock worth Rs. 5,00,000/-. If the shop had damaged badly on 21.07.2005, it cannot be brought back on the track in such a short interval of 5 days. It is not possible to repair the shop, make fresh purchase of the goods from Rishikesh and to give a fresh look to the shop within 5 days from the date of the incident. Further, the goods damaged in the said incident were not produced before the surveyor and it was stated by the complainant that as the damaged stock had started giving foul smell, it was thrown out. Such a reply of the insured creates doubt in the genuineness of the claim. All these facts and circumstantial evidences lead us to believe that the claim submitted by the complainant was an exaggerated one. Such a reply of the insured creates doubt in the genuineness of the claim. All these facts and circumstantial evidences lead us to believe that the claim submitted by the complainant was an exaggerated one. On the basis of the District Magistrate’s report, the complainant was also one of the affected persons but the actual loss suffered by him due to the incident of cloud burst can not be to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/-. Since the complainant has failed to produce stock register, purchase voucher and details of the sale, we have no option but to accept the assessment of loss made by the surveyor, which is Rs. 24,913/-. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum needs modification to this extent. 8. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 22.08.2006 passed by the District Forum is modified and the compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum, is reduced to Rs. 24,913/-. Rest of the order of the District Forum is confirmed. No order as to costs.