K.D.SHAHI,CHAIRMAN - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2002 passed by District Forum, Almora where by the claim of the complainant has been allowed for recovery of a sum of Rs.
(2.) ,71,890/ -. 2. The complainant purchased a vehicle for a sum of Rs.
(3.) ,27,675.60/ - on 02.09.1998. It was stolen on 07.09.2000 after exactly about 2 years. Before the learned Forum, the brief pleas were taken but the factum of theft, final report, insurance etc. is proved. It was argued that what shall be the depreciation. There was a user of two years and even if it is taken to be the user of three years, then also depreciation shall be only 15% . The learned Forum has discussed all these points. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that this is depreciation in case of accident. He has also argued that the depreciation of tyre etc. has not been taken which should be about 50%. May be so, but this is a case of theft and tyres etc. have also been stolen. There is no case that these were totally damaged in case of accident. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that ac -cording to the report of the surveyor, the value should be Rs. 1,45,000/ -. It is less than half the price as paid by the complainant and by no stretch of argument, it can be believed that the price of the vehicle becomes just half only within 2 years. All that depends upon maintenance of the vehicle, its use and there can not be any presumption that merely because it was used as a Taxi, the vehicle must have become totally rotten. It can also be presumed that when the vehicle was earning, the complainant must have been maintaining it for his livelihood sake so that it may easily be taken by the passengers on hire. The report of the surveyor is there but how he all of a sudden be came to the conclusion that its price should be Rs. 1,45,000/ - is not clear. He is not an expert of the market. He has not taken any quotation from the market. He did not give any data or finding from where he collected this market value. There is no law that surveyor may say that the vehicle is of no value and therefore, the claim should be rejected. In case like this whereth2.report of the surveyor is taken to be true without any evidence, finding, data' collection of material from the market, the surveyor may exploit any Complainant in the manner he likes. Even the affidavit of the surveyor has not been filed that he has given a correct valuation. In these circumstances, we are unable to rely on the report of the surveyor and to fix a value reported by the surveyor. The finding recorded by the learned Forum is a finding of fact, after giving due reasons. It does not call for any interference by this Commission. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost b of the' appeal Shall be easy.;