Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The unfolded story   of the complainant,  is that  the complainant has got business at shop No.A-5 and B-3 of S.B. Market Complex  and its additional  place at business at N.H.6(six)  near private bus stand at Bargarh wherein she deals in Titan,Sonata, Timex,Maxima,Rochees,Classis,Doller  watches  and its spare parts. The complainant has insured all the stock of   shops with the OP for the period  under  different period raising from 08.11.2005 to 16.03.2006 respectively. It is alleged inter-alia that on 04.05.2006 there was burglary  in the shop   at N.H. 6  and the complainant sustained loss of Rs.7,46,832.00. On the next day the police after due investigation filed the final report. The insurer had sent the surveyor  who after survey submits report computed loss of  Rs.2,19,068/- . Although it is surveyed  but the claim was not settled. Since, the claim  was not settled, the complaint was filed.

4.          The OP filed written version stating that  the complainant has insured the stocks at three places with  the OP and they have sent the  surveyor who have made survey. After due service  there was loss assessed by surveyor at Rs.2,19,068/- and the complainant was asked to produce the documents. Since, the documents were not produced by the complainant,  there was non-settlement of the claim as prayed for. As per policy condition the documents  are required. Due to violation of the policy condition, they have settled the claim as no claim.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “In view of the above finding, the Opposite Party  is directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.7,46,832/-(
Rupees seven lakh fortysix thousand eight hundred thirty two )only with 9 % (nine percent ) interest per annum over the amount chargeable with effect from Dt.05.09.2006 upto the date of this order i.e. Dt.22.09.2009 and a compensation/cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only within 30(thirty) days hence, failing which the entire amount shall carry 18 % (eithteen percent) interest per annum till payment.

               Complaint allowed accordingly. “

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version  and the materials filed by the OP with proper perspectives. According to him, learned District Forum ought to have  considered the  report of the surveyor which is unbais and ambiguity one. But the complainant  has claimed the compensation of all   these places. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.             Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the claim was made for  three places, but the surveyor has assessed the loss in one place according to the stock register.  Not only this but also the surveyor has committed error by taking the survey in one place which is not correct. According to him the loss assessed at per  the places should  be  the basis  for settlement of the claim. Since, the claim has not been  settled he supports the impugned order.

  8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties,  perused the DFR and impugned order .

9.                   It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the policy for three business places  as stated above from the OP. It is also not in dispute that during currency of the policy the burglary took place in one location i.e. side of N.H.6 near Bus Stand. It is not in dispute that the surveyor  was deputed    who assessed the loss. But  the fact remains that the OP sat over the matter  and did not settle the claim.  The only plea taken by the OP that the complainant has not produced  the documents as required by the OP. Sitting over claim without settling the claim is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is true that the surveyor’s report   is the basis for settlement of  claim.

10.             But on perusal  of the surveyor report it appears that the loss was estimated  as per the claim  for Rs.7,46,832/- but the loss assessed  for  loss at Rs.5,84,179/-. It appears that  the loss  assessed by the surveyor is Rs.2,19,068/- as per the description of para 7.7.  It appears from the report that he has made loss on proportionate  basis without actual  loss. Therefore, the opinion of the surveyor  is not correct but we have  to only hold loss in one place telling stock at three places but not proportionate basis. So,  loss  of  Rs.5,84,179/- to be taken as loss computed.  Therefore, the surveyor report for Rs.2,19,068/- is not accepted.  Hence, while confirming the impugned order we modified  the order by directing OP to pay  Rs.5,84,179/- to the complainant    within  a period of 45 days from the date of order, failing  which   it will carry 12 % interest  of the ordered amount from the date of  impugned order till date of payment. Rest of the impugned order will remain unaltered.

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                 DFR be sent back forthwith.