ORDER

The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (“the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.41 of 2015, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was partly allowed.

2. For Convenience, the parties in the present case being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. The Complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Raj Khad Bhandar and running Pesticides and Fertilizer Products business. United India Insurance Company Ltd. is referred to as the Opposite Party/Insurer (OP).

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant obtained a standard fire insurance policy from the OP for Rs.40,00,000/- valid from 05.11.2012 to 04.11.2013. On the night of 30.10.2013, a fire erupted in the Complainant’s shop, resulting in the destruction of goods valued over Rs.40,00,000/-. Subsequently, they submitted a claim for the sum assured, but only Rs.3,27,180/- was paid. Dissatisfied, they filed Consumer Complaint No.41 of 2015 before the State Commission, seeking release of full Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. Also, Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed for mental agony and Rs.21,000/- as costs.

4. In the reply, the OP asserted that based on the report of fire and the claim by the Complainant, surveyor was appointed on 31.10.2013. They conducted inspection on 01.11.2013 and the Complainant was instructed to segregate the damaged and other articles. After receiving the necessary information, a follow-up visit was made on 07.11.2013 and the loss was assessed at Rs.3,27,000/-This assessment was not accepted by the Complainant, who failed to substantiate the claim of loss of Rs.40,00,000/-. Additionally, the OP has also raised objections as regards maintainability of the complaint contending that it is defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties. Specifically, Syndicate Bank, Panipat, the Complainant’s financier, has not been impleaded. The OP has also cited concealment of true facts, among other grounds and sought dismissal of the complaint.

5. The learned State Commission partly allowed the complaint, issuing the following Order—

“6. ….As per calculation submitted by complainant value of the articles is Rs.2,46,535/- much less then the amount assessed by surveyor. The surveyor has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.3,27,000/- which is on the higher side. As insurance company is relying upon the report of the surveyor, so it cannot go out of the same. Resultantly claimant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,27,180/- as mentioned in Ex.R-1 .

7. As a sequel to above discussion complaint is allowed and O.P. is directed to pay Rs.3,27,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.21,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.”

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Complainant (Appellant herein) filed this present Appeal seeking the following:

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to:—

[a] Call the Record and Admit the appeal

[b] Modified the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in Complaint No. 41 of 2015 and the respondent may kindly directed to pay Rs. 40 lacs [for loss of pesticides, fixture and furniture suffered by the appellant) along with interest @ 18%

[c] Pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The Appellant raised the following grounds of appeal in the present memo:—

(a) The Appellant had regularly deposited the stock report with his banker. The surveyor failed to consider the stock statements