IMPORTANT POINTS
1) State Commission has rightly relied on the market value of the rice while calculating the damage.
2) Counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out that findings of the State Commission are based on conjectures or surmises

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present Appeal, under Section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated-30.04.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.28 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the Complaint and issued the following directions:

18. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.17,26,674/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Four only) towards loss of stock in the insured premises along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, i.e. 11.07.2016, till the date of realization; Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards costs to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are further directed to comply the order of this Commission within two months from the date of order. If the Opposite Parties fail to comply the order, they have to pay interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.17,26,674/- from the date of order till the date of realization.”

2. This order is impugned before us by the Appellant who was the Opposite Party before the State Commission.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent (hereinafter referred as “the Complainant”), the proprietor of M/s Balaji Enterprises, 3/17, C/o Sri Venkateshwara Modern Rice Mill had purchased from the Appellant (hereinafter referred as “the Opposite Party”) a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for a sum of Rs.33 Lakhs on payment of premium of Rs.9,900/- covering the risk of the stock lying in their premises no.123, Avoliyi Village, Budhiti Post, Jalumuru Mandal of Srikaulam District. The Complainant subsequently shifted their business to Kothapeta Street, Mandapam, Narasannapeta Mandal of Srikakulam District and duly informed the Opposite Party about the change of place of business. In the month of October 2014, due to Hud Hud cyclone, the paddy rice and broken rice stored in the rice mill premises were completely damaged. The Complainant submitted the claim with the Opposite Party. Mr. V. Abbu Rao was appointed as a surveyor who visited the site on 17.10.2014 and on 15.02.2015, he demanded certain documents which were duly supplied to him. He submitted his report on 27.03.2015, copy of which along with clarification report dated 21.06.2015 was supplied to the Complainant. According to the surveyor report, the value of the closing stock before it was hit by the cyclone and also certified by the Chartered Accountant was Rs.40,42,337/-. The surveyor also recorded that the Complainant had tried to save the stock by putting GI/AC sheets over the paddy and rice stock but it was blown off, broken/bent due to cyclone. The Complainant also tried to save the stock by putting tarpaulin on it. He informed that the gunny bags in the premises were completely damaged as rain water entered into the premises. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,17,083/-. He had assessed the loss noting in its report that only 100 quintals of paddy and 25 quintals of rice were damaged.

It is submitted that after the report of the surveyor and the explanation by the surveyor, on 26.09.2015 a legal notice was sent by the Complainant claiming a damage of Rs.33 Lakhs. A reply dated 24.11.2015 was received by the Complainant and the Opposite Party had offered a sum of Rs.,1,17,083/- towards full and final settlement which was not accepted by the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the State Commission.

4. In the Complaint, the Complainant alleged that despite the fact that the complete stock of rice and paddy was destroyed, the compensation offered is only for 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice and that, it amounts to deficiency in service.

5. The Complaint was contested by the Opp