K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complt. No. 2/2012 – Manjurani Enterprises Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & 3 Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/appellant being an unemployed youth to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment took distributorship of different consumable products of different companies and the distributorship was named and styled as M/s. Manjurani Enterprises with the sole Proprietorship of the complainant. He took one standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and one Burglary BP Policy vide Policy Nos. 034304/11/10/11/00000082 and 034304/46/10/04/00000223 respectively in respect of godown situated at Nabakalebar Road, Puni covering the period from 20.5.2010 to 19.5.2011 from opposite party nos. 1 to 3/Respondent no. 1 to Respondent no. 3 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. the assured sum being Rs. 70,00,000/- and the premium paid was Rs.17,372/-. In the midnight of 23/24.11.2010 the said godown and all the goods kept therein were destroyed due to fire. Complainant informed the incident to opposite party nos. 1 to 3 – Insurance Company and lodged FIR. On being informed opposite party no. 3 deputed a surveyor namely, ESEN Insurance and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. for spot inspection and assessment of loss and accordingly, he visited the spot, but without properly verifying the documents assessed the loss at Rs. 9,97,462/-. Accordingly, opposite party nos. 1 to 3 – Insurance Company requested him to receive the said amount and sign the discharge voucher towards full and final satisfaction of the claim. Immediately, he raised objection against it to opposite party no. 3 vide letter dated 4.4.2011, but to no effect. So he brought this fact to the C.M.D. of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 – Insurance Company, who realized the mistake of the first surveyor and deputed a second surveyor namely, Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. a Chennai based Surveyor to reassess the loss. Accordingly, the said surveyor conducted the survey to reassess the loss. Accordingly, the said surveyor conducted the survey on 7.7.2011 and 8.7.2011 and concluded that the value of stock destroyed in fire was Rs.53,00,821/- and after deducting 5% thereof recommended for payment of Rs.50,25,780/-. Again opposite party nos. 1 to 3 – Insurance Company sent a letter to the second surveyor for assessment of the loss of the complainant properly and accordingly, it assessed the loss at Rs.48,96,574/- including the cost of recharge vouchers of Rs.16,91,949/- damaged due to fire. They paid a sum of Rs.32,04,625/- towards full and final settlement of the claim and the complainant received the same with protest by keeping the claim alive. Thereafter, opposite party nos. 1 to 3 – Company wrote a letter to the complainant to clarify certain points. Accordingly, he clarified the same and expressed his willingness to execute the indemnity bond as asked for but till then Rs.16,91,949/- towards the cost of the unused vouchers was not paid to him. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs complainant filed complaint before State Commission.

3. Opposite Party nos. 1 to 3 in their written version admitted the insurance policies to have been taken by the complainant. They also admitted that the accidental fire occurred while the policy was in force, but according to them the case was not maintainable since complainants carried on the business for commercial purpose and there were arbitration clauses in the policies to the effect that if any dispute arises between the parties, the same would be adjudicated by the arbitrator. After receipt of the report of the second surveyor, opposite party no. 1 wrote a letter to him on 3.11.2011 to justify the assessment with regard to recharge vouchers of Rs.16,91,949/-,