IMPORTANT POINT
Report made by Surveyor cannot be disbelieved unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this first appeal, filed under Section 19, read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 1.11.2010, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( hereinafter referred as the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.C-9/01, vide which, the said complaint stood dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant Devender Malhotra, who is stated to be the sole proprietor of M/s Balaji Industries, 112, Gagan Vihar Extension, New Delhi is engaged in the business of printing of packing material such as, laminates, pouches, packets etc. and his unit consists of printing machines and processing machines and he purchases the raw-material for the said printing job, done for various industries. The printing job is done on polyester film and after that, coating of lamination is done with the help of printed polyester material and in the process, several chemicals, mainly inks, dyes, LD films etc. are used. The complainant obtained cash credit facility of 15 lakhs from the OP-2, Canara Bank, based on his turn over and stock in hand.

3. The complainant obtained a standard fire and special perils policy, bearing No.041703/1106/11/00000094 valid from 4.5.2006 to 3.5.2007 for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, covering risk of stock of printing inks, rollers, LD films related to trade etc. It is stated in the consumer complaint that on 29.8.2006, the Bank carried out assessment of the stock of the factory and found that there was stock worth more than Rs.25 lakh. However, just two days after the said verification i.e. on 30.9.2006 at about 9 p.m., a fire broke out at the premises of the unit, that is, at 325, Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi, in which, the entire material, stock and official records were burnt, resulting in loss of more than Rs.20 lakhs. The incident was reported to the fire department as well as to the police. A claim was filed with the insurance company under the policy amounting to Rs.22.13 lakhs. The insurance company deputed S. Soni & Co. to survey and assess the loss. The said surveyor asked the complainant to submit 16 documents vide his letter dated 5.10.2006, followed by letter dated 18.10.2006. The complainant could not submit certain documents like stock register, purchase and sale bills etc. for certain periods, on the plea that the said documents had been destroyed in the fire. The surveyor in his report dated 3.4.2007, assessed the loss as Rs.4,51,088.75 after physical quantification and valuation, based on purchase and sale bills available, and market price of the goods destroyed in fire. The OP-1, insurance company offered payment of Rs.4,50,344/- to the complainant which being not acceptable to them, the consumer complaint in question was filed.

4. The said consumer complaint was first ordered to be sent to the District Forum by the State Commission, but in appeal before this Commission, the said order was reversed and the State Commission was directed to dispose of the complaint, vide this Commission order dated 20.2.2008. Vide their order dated 22.7.2008, the State Commission directed the insurance company to adjudicate the claim on the basis of the material and documents produced by the complainant. Thereafter, the insurance company vide their letter dated 7.11.2008, stated that the claim had been settled for Rs.4,50,344/- on the basis of the assessment made by the surveyor and in terms of the policy conditions. However, aggrieved by the said letter, the complainant filed complaint before the State Commission, which having been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 1.11.2010, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present appeal.

5. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant during hearing that they had filed all necessary documents, including the report of the fire department and the report made to the police in support of their c