Suresh Chandra, Member:- The petitioner Insurance Co. has filed this revision petition against the order dated 07.06.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('State Commission' for short) in appeal no.820 of 2005 whereby the State Commission has upheld the order dated 18.02.2005 of the District Forum with the modification of reduction of rate of interest from 12% to 9%. 2. Briefly put, the factual matrix of the case are that the complainants, re­spondents herein, purchased a Tata India Model-2000 car bearing Registration No.HR 22-D-0044 on loan and got it in­sured with the petitioner Insurance Co. through OP-2/Petitoner-2 vide its cover note no.731793 for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- + Rs.10,000/- for and paid a sum of Rs.6,855/- as premium to the OP Insur­ance Co. The said car met with an acci­dent on 23.02.2003 causing total damage to the vehicle for which necessary intima­tion was given by the respondents to OP-2 for paying the insured sum to them. Sh. Raj Kumar Singla, surveyor was deputed who investigated the matter. Thereafter, another surveyor Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma and Sh. Sunil Vashisht were appointed. Necessary documents were submitted to them and they assured that the case would be settled early. However, when no action was taken by the OP Insurance Co. for a considerable period, the complainants knocked the door of the consumer for a by lodging a complaint with the District Fo­rum which was allowed by it by directing the OP Insurance Co. to disburse the in­surance amount of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rs.2,30,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) of the car in question to the complainants after de­ducting the cost of the salvage of Rs.80,000/- assessed by the surveyors along with interest (a) 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 31.10.2003 till its final realization. The OP Insurance Co. was further directed to pay cost of liti­gation of Rs.1100/- to the complainants. Aggrieved by the order of the District Fo­rum, the petitioners carried the same in appeal before the State Commission which came to be partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid impugned order dated 07.06.2006. 3. We have heard counsel for the par­ties and perused the record. was further directed to pay cost of liti­gation of Rs.1100/- to the complainants. Aggrieved by the order of the District Fo­rum, the petitioners carried the same in appeal before the State Commission which came to be partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid impugned order dated 07.06.2006. 3. We have heard counsel for the par­ties and perused the record. The State Com­mission while upholding the order of the District Forum, has recorded the following findings in its impugned order :- "The valuation report dated 21.4.2003 of Shri Ved Parkash Sharma after de­ducting the depreciation on quarterly basis i.e. 7.5% had come to a finding that net amount payable is Rs.2,22,000/- out of the insured sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. While working out the market value of the car in ques­tion it is stated that on 23.02.2003, the date of loss, the valuation of the car was Rs. 1,80,000/-. He further de­termined the valuation of the salvage asRs.80,000/-. Therefore, he recom­mended that liability of the insurance company comes to Rs.one lac only. Shri Sunil Vashist has dittoed the re­port of Shri Ved Parkash Sharma. Shri Raj Kumar in his separate report dated 1.5.2003 has stated that on the date of accident Shri Darbara was driv­ing the vehicle and as a result of the accident extensive damage was caused to the vehicle. When he inspected the same at the spot, he assessed the mar­ket value of the vehicle as Rs. 1,80,000/- and after deducting the salvage value of Rs.80,000/- determined the insur­ance liability to the value of Rs. one lac. Consent letter Annexure A6 has also been placed on record which indicates that Narender Kumar had agreed to receive a sum of Rs.one lac as the dam­age caused to the car as a result of mutual negotiation settlement. The definite stand taken from the side of the complainant is that his signature were obtained on blank papers. An­other surprising feature in this case is that the consent letter which has been placed on record is undated. Even it is the case of the opposite parties that this consent letter was given during the period. The investigation was being made but still this sum was not paid to the claimant, rather his claim has not been settled till the claim was filed. Even it is the case of the opposite parties that this consent letter was given during the period. The investigation was being made but still this sum was not paid to the claimant, rather his claim has not been settled till the claim was filed. The explanation sought to be given by the opposite parties in this regard is that the complainant after giving consent letter failed to get the registration cer­tificate transferred in the name of the opposite parties and to execute the discharge voucher. No other material has been placed on record from the side of the opposite parties in support of the stand taken in this regard. There­fore, the version of the opposite par­ties that the claimant has given his con­sent letter of his own free will cannot be acceptable on its face value. The contents of the consent letter shows that tampering has been done with re­gard to the amount of the settlement so mentioned in the consent letter for which no signature of the complain­ant has been obtained. Under the cir­cumstances of the case, the District Forum rightly did not accept the con­sent letter for deciding the complaint. In this case during the course of argu­ments learned counsel for the appel­lants has also contended that the Dis­trict Forum was not justified in award­ing the compensation amount of Rs.2.40,000/- after deduction of the cost of the salvage amounting to Rs.80,000/- because it has totally ig­nored the reports of the Surveyor which have been produced on record and the District Forum was required to determine the compensation amount payable on the market value of the said car. In support of the stand taken reliance was placed by him on NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AM LAMBA I (2003) CPJ 229 (NC) wherein the vehicle of 1996 Model in­sured for Rs.6 lacs, met with an acci­dent and after allowing depreciation of 10% and deducting the salvage amount, direction was given to the In­surance Co. topayRs.4,80,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum. In this case it was observed that the value of the compensation will depend on the value of the vehicle after reducing from its price the depreciation and the depreciation value was taken on the basis of specific agreement entered into between the parties so described in the policy. Reference was further made to NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. In this case it was observed that the value of the compensation will depend on the value of the vehicle after reducing from its price the depreciation and the depreciation value was taken on the basis of specific agreement entered into between the parties so described in the policy. Reference was further made to NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS MOTIBHAI RAMDANBHAI PATEL 11(2004) CPJ 7, wherein it was held that in case the loss assessed by the Surveyor was not found according to the true and correct working of the market value of the vehicle and for that reason the market value was worked out on the basis of set out in the policy. In this case, the opposite parties have placed the cover note Annexure-A on record but not the policy. There being no clause in the cover note dealing with the depreciation value to be ar­rived at by adopting the market value of the vehicle on the date of loss. The valuation report submitted by the loss assessor whereby they have tried to as­sess the loss on the market value, as such, cannot be accepted. Even oth­erwise, no definite data is available in the valuation report noticed above on the basis of which one can come to the conclusion about the exact market value of the car in question. Under the circumstances of the case, the District Forum was fully justified in awarding compensation amount ofRs.2,40,000/- after deducting the salvage value of Rs.80,000/- to be payable by the op­posite parties to the complainant." 4. We agree with the concurrent find­ing of the for a below with regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the pe­titioner Insurance Co. Relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National In­surance Co. Ltd. and Ors. [ (2009) 7 SCC 777 ], counsel for the petitioners submit­ted that although surveyor's report is not treated as last word but there must be le­gitimate reason for departing from such report. According to counsel for the peti­tioners the for a below have erred in differ­ing from the report of the surveyors with­out adequate reasons and hence the im­pugned order could not be sustained in the eyes of law. According to counsel for the peti­tioners the for a below have erred in differ­ing from the report of the surveyors with­out adequate reasons and hence the im­pugned order could not be sustained in the eyes of law. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has relied on the judg­ments of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 3253 of 2002) and the judgment of this Commission de­livered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mehar Chand in Revision Petition No.3499 of 2009. In support of his submission, counsel for the respond­ents has also referred to the standard in­structions contained in the Standard Form for private car package policy which pro­vides that the Insured's Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle will be deemed to be the 'SUM INSURED' for the purpose of this policy which is fixed at the commence­ment of each policy period for the insured vehicle. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties before us and perused the record, it is to be noted that both the for a below have discarded the valuation report done by the surveyors and hence con­sidered the IDV as the reasonable and re­liable basis. We do not find any infirmity with their finding. The detailed reasons have been recorded in the impugned order in support of this finding. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar (supra) relied upon by the counsel for respondent, the Apex Court has held as under :- "15.......In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thou­sand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the in­sured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured." 6. As regards the consent letter referred to by the petitioners, it is clear from the submissions of the respondent that the re­spondent has not agreed to the terms of the consent letter. As regards the consent letter referred to by the petitioners, it is clear from the submissions of the respondent that the re­spondent has not agreed to the terms of the consent letter. In any case, the same cannot be relied upon since the document placed on record by the petitioners indi­cates cutting and overwriting of figures, which makes the document unreliable. Taking into consideration these facts and circumstances of this case, we find that there is no substance in the revision peti­tion which would justify our interference while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. The concurrent findings of the for a below being in line with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar (supra) and by this Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mehar Chand (supra), the revision petition is li­able for dismissal and the same is dismissed accordingly and the impugned order of the State Commission is hereby confirmed.