ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member—These Revision Petitions have been filed against the common impugned Order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Appeal Nos. 1026 of 2008 and 1027 of 2008, vide which an earlier Order of the Ld. District Forum was modified. As the Revision Petitions arise from the common impugned Order, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 727 of 2018 is treated as the lead case.

2. The factual circumstances leading up to the present Petition are that the Complainant, proprietor of M/s Maharashtra Rice Mill, operates a small-scale industrial unit at Bapabodi, Sakoli, Bhandara, and insured her rice Mill with the Opposite Party/Insurance Company, a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India. The insurance, under cover note No. 09548/95 dated 09.02.1999, covered the rice Mill building, machinery, and stocks, valid until 08.02.2000 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Policy document (No. 271303/99/11/04124) was issued on 06.08.1999, notably months after the claim incident. On 21.05.1999, during the Policy period, a cyclone and heavy rains caused significant damage to the rice Mill, including the building, machinery, and stock. The Complainant promptly informed the Opposite Party via phone and telegram and notified the relevant Authorities, including the Police, Revenue Office, Cooperative Bank, and Electricity Board. The Opposite Party subsequently appointed Mr. Ashok Motwani, a Surveyor, who inspected the site on 27.05.1999. The Complainant submitted all requisite documents and repeatedly followed up through verbal requests and written letters, but the claim was not addressed.

3. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party’s issuance of the Insurance Policy in August 1999, two months after the claim was lodged, suggests deliberate delay and ulterior motives to deny the claim. Despite Legal Notice sent by the Complainant’s counsel on 29.10.1999, the Opposite Party neither responded nor settled the claim. Instead, the Surveyor continued demanding redundant documents, further delaying the resolution. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, the Complainant filed her Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Gondia.

4. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 29.11.2008 partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party/Petitioner to pay to the Complainant Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.08.2000 till realization along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation costs. The Petitioner/Opposite Party then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 16.11.2017 modified the Order of the District Forum. The State Commission lowered the compensation in Appeal No. 1026 of 2008 from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/- and in Appeal No. 1027 of 2008, the compensation was reduced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the State Commission partly allowed the Petitioner’s Appeal by reducing the awarded amount from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/- relying on the spot assessment by the Circle Officer of Saundad while disregarding the Surveyor’s Report and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Petitioner submits that the impugned Order is arbitrary and unsustainable, warranting immediate dismissal. The claim was lodged by the Respondent on 25.05.1999, and a Surveyor was appointed who conducted a physical verification on 27.05.1999. The delay in the submission of the Surveyor’s Report until 15.04.2000 was wrongly attributed to the Surveyor, despite clear evidence of the Respondent’s lackadaisical approach in providing requisite documents and inflated estimates.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has further argued that the Surveyor had repeatedly sought claim papers through reminders and ultimately assesse