Mr. Justice Chandrashekariah, President—The complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 with interest and also has sought for damages of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.

2. The facts, in this case are as follows:

The complainant is the owner of the Firm which deals in wholesale grocery business in Dharward. He used to store all types of food grains in his godown at Nehru Market, Dharwad. The stock kept in the said godown was insured with the O.P. On 25.4.2001 at about 2.30 a.m. there was a fire accident due to the short circuit which ultimately damaged the goods stored in the said godown. On the very day, after the accident, the complainant had informed the said accident to the Insurance Company. In addition to that the complainant has also informed the police and the fire brigade authorities who immediately came and made an attempt to extinguish the fire. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a claim on 4.5.2001 before the Insurance Company claiming compensation. The assured sum under the policy is Rs. 15,00,000. The Insurance Company no doubt appointed a Surveyor for assessment of the loss. But there is a delay on the part of the Insurance Company in appointing a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 5,22,727, the copy of which is produced as Ex. C.3. But ultimately the Insurance Company has offered a sum of Rs. 3,92,045 by deducting 25% on the ground of benefit of doubt. As the complainant was not satisfied with the said offer has filed the complaint before this Commission.

3. The Insurance Company, on service of notice issued by this Commission has filed its version justifying its actions.

4. The only question that arises for our consideration in this complaint is; whether the Insurance Company is justified in offering a sum of Rs. 3,92,045 deducting 25% from out of the total loss assessed by the Surveyor on the ground of benefit of doubt, when the claim is for Rs. 15,00,000?

5. On the claim made by the complainant the Insurance Company appointed one Sri Kulkarni to investigate the matter. The said Sri Kulkarni has submitted his report on 8.5.2001 to the Insurance Company, the copy of which is produced at Annexure R. 1. In this report he has referred to the stock damaged in the godown. The Insurance Company has also produced photographs in respect of the godown in question. From this it is clear that substantial damage has been caused due to the fire accident. The Surveyor who was appointed by the Insurance Company has also referred to the stock found in the godown, and thereafter, segregated the damaged goods from the unaffected goods and assessed the loss at Rs. 5,22,727. The copy of the said report is produced as Annexure R.2. The complainant has produced the stock list which is produced as Ex. C.2.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that there is no much difference so far as, the stock found in Annexure C.2, the stocks referred to in the investigation report and the Surveyors report. The loss assessed by the complainant appears to be little exaggerated. In the absence of such positive evidence regarding the value of damaged goods, it is safe to rely upon the Surveyor’s report for the purpose of quantifying the compensation.

7. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as per the report of one Sri Shambhu Alagungi, the damage caused to the goods is not due to the short circuit as per the chemical analysis, there was a presence of kerosene in the burnt articles. This statement cannot be relied upon in the absence of any positive evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to show that the fire accident is not due to short circuit. When such being the case, there is no reason for the Insurance Company to deduct 25% on the ground of benefit of doubt.

8. Though the complainant has made a claim on 4.5.2001, the Insurance Company has not appointed the Surveyor immediately for the purpose of assessi