PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the U.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case no. 36/95, opposite party riental Insurance Company has filed the appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and has directed the opposite party insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.63,918/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment with the stipulation that payment shall be made within two months from the date of the receipt of the order. 2. The complaint before the State Commission related to non settlement of insurance claim lodged by complainant in respect of loss suffered by him due to damage to his stock of potatoes kept in the cold storage due to rise of temperature on account of breakdown of machinery and compressor. Complainant claimed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- for the loss suffered to him. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company primarily on the ground that loss allegedly suffered by the complainant was not covered under the policy and in any case had no nexus with the alleged breakdown of the machinery and compressor. Though the State Commission made certain observations about the non-acceptability of the claim on certain ground but still in the ultimate paragraph of the order the State Commission has allowed the claim in part in consonance with the assessment of loss made by the surveyor. It is pertinent to extract the observation and findings of the State Commission in this regard: rom a bare perusal of the survey report and the material available on record it is clear that breakdown was for a very short period and any rising in the temperature did not effect the potato wholly nor it could be argued that it was instrumental towards any such deterioration as claimed by the complainant. Even having notice of the fact that there was rise in temperature for a very short period the consumer failed to take any action and also avoided any effort of controlling the temperature. It is also clear that the compressor for the purpose of cooling both the chamber were having capacity of 9.4 R.T. i.e. 4400 quintals whereas the complainant had stored more than 5700 qtls. Of potatao. Even the generating set capacity was only 62.5 K.V.A. Thus we are satisfied that the claim as made by the complainant under these circumstances is not acceptable. The surveyor after taking all these aspects into consideration has come to assessment of loss occasioned to the complainant for Rs.63918/-. There is no need for interference with that compensation awarded by the surveyor 3. We have heard Mr.S.M.Tripathi, learned counsel representing the appellant insurance company but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent as respondent remain unrepresented at the time of hearing of appeal though on some occasions he was represented on record. 4. Mr.Tripathi would assail the impugned order mainly on the ground that the order is inconsistent with the above finding and observation of the State Commission. We see merits in his contention because the State Commission had noted number of acts of omission and commission on the part of the insured and on one breath held that e are not satisfied that the claim as made by the complainant under these circumstances is not acceptablebut in the second breath it recorded that urveyor after taking all these aspects into consideration has come to the assessment of loss occasioned to the complainant for Rs.63.918/- Mr Tripathi submits and in our opinion rightly so that the assessment of loss made by the surveyor is simply for the purpose of making the fair assessment of loss and cannot be deemed to be recommendation for making the payment of the said amount which is in the sole discretion of the insurance company in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular observation and finding made by the State Commission ( supra) we are of the view that complainant was not entitled to any relief even to the extent it was granted to him. The order is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed and impugned order is hereby set aside and complaint will be deemed to have been dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.