ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, J., President—The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed and the Opposite Party Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.96,78,211/- alongwith interest @10%p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment together with cost of Rs.10,000/- the Complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the M/s. Arora Housing Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was running an institute for education of the students under the name and style of “International Tourism Institute (India)” at its building situated at Jahangirabad Palace, Mallital, Nainital and also a hotel under the name and style of “Palace Resorts” in the same building mainly for the purpose of imparting practical training to the students of the said Institute. The Complainant renovated and furnished the said building for which it invested its own capital and also took a loan of Rs.1.10 Crore from Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Bank). The Complainant obtained insurance of the said Building from National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Insurance Company) w.e.f. 17.02.2000 to 16.02.2001. During the currency of the Policy on 16.01.2001 unfortunately the insured building caught fire and was completely destroyed. The Complainant informed the incident to the Opposite Party Insurance Company, who appointed Mr. V.D. Joshi for spot survey and M/s. Rohit Kumar & Co. for survey of the site and assessment of the loss. The Surveyor vide letter dated 30.04.2002 informed the Complainant that claim was adjusted for Rs.96,78,211/- and asked the Complainant for giving its consent. As the Complainant was hard-pressed of the funds, it gave its consent vide letter dated 01.05.2002 for settlement of claim at Rs.96,78,211/-. Despite that the said amount was not paid to the Complainant. After lot of follow-up, the Complainant was informed by the Insurance Company vide its letter dated 26.12.2003 that the claim was settled at Rs.22,22,975/-. But the Insurance Company did not pay even the sum of Rs.22,22,975/- as the Complainant wanted to accept this amount under protest, while on the other hand, the Insurance Company wanted that the Complainant should accept this amount as full and final settlement. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

3. The Appellant Insurance Company contested the Complaint before the State Commission and submitted that the consent of the Complainant is not binding upon the Insurer and the insurer has right to pay or settle any claim at an amount different from the amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss assessor; the survey report submitted by the M/s Rohit Kumar and Co. was prepared in the absence of requisite information and documents as such they could not accept the said report and appointed M/s. Atul Kapur & Co. to investigate, collect, co-relate and corroborate certain information, who with the help of their consulting engineer made thorough investigations / observations / verifications / inspections of the site, prepared a detailed report on 18.12.2003 which was sent to M/s. Rohit Kumar & Co., who prepared their supplementary report and finally assessed the loss at Rs.22,22,975/- and they offered the said amount to the Complainant but they did not accept the same and opted to approach this Commission. It was submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Consumer Complaint be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the parties and perusal of material on record, the State Commission allowed the Complaint and dire