ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 235 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @6% p.a. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UA08-K-1628 (Tata Safari). The said vehicle was insured with the appellant – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 31.07.2009 to 30.07.2010. On 28.01.2010, when the complainant was going to Lucknow by the insured vehicle, the same met with an accident. The insured vehicle was retrieved from the accident site. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and submitted the estimate of repairs with the insurance company, but the insurance company did not settle the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant did not fulfill the required formalities and did not supply the required documents for settlement of the claim and that there was no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 26.10.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the accident of the insured vehicle during the validity of the period of insurance. On receipt of the intimation regarding the accident of the insured vehicle, the insurance company has appointed Sh. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, surveyor and loss assessor for assessment of the loss, who vide his report dated 04.07.2010 submitted to the insurance company (Paper Nos. 50 to 56), has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 1,95,699.97/- and at page No. 3 of his report (Paper No. 52), the surveyor has recommended that the net loss of Rs. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, surveyor and loss assessor for assessment of the loss, who vide his report dated 04.07.2010 submitted to the insurance company (Paper Nos. 50 to 56), has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 1,95,699.97/- and at page No. 3 of his report (Paper No. 52), the surveyor has recommended that the net loss of Rs. 1,95,700/- be paid to the insured subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 7. It is by now a settled law that in insurance claims, the report of the surveyor is an important piece of evidence and the same can not be brushed aside, unless there is cogent and reliable evidence on record to controvert the same. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the District Forum has not given any sound reasoning as to why the report of the surveyor can not be accepted. There is mere proforma invoice of I.S. Motors (P) Ltd. (Paper Nos. 27 to 30) and letter dated 02.07.2010 of I.S. Motors (P) Ltd. (Paper No. 26), stating therein that sum of Rs. 3,66,000/- was spent in the repairs of the vehicle. But in view of the survey report of the statutory surveyor of the insurance company, the said proforma invoice and letter can not be given much weightage. Thus, the District Forum has erred in not relying upon the report of the surveyor and awarding the amount in excess of the loss assessed by the surveyor. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; I (2007) CPJ 278 (NC), has held that the surveyor’s report being an important document has to be given due relevance and importance unless it is rebutted by some cogent evidence. Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ashu Textiles Vs. New India Assurance Company and another; III (2009) CPJ 272 (NC), has also observed that the surveyor’s report should be taken into consideration for determining the compensation, as the surveyor’s report has to be given more weightage than the report submitted by anybody else or any private agency. Thus, the appeal is to be partly allowed and the order impugned is to be modified accordingly. 8. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 26.10.2010 passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. Thus, the appeal is to be partly allowed and the order impugned is to be modified accordingly. 8. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 26.10.2010 passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 3,70,000/- to Rs. 1,95,700/-. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum is maintained. No order as to costs.