The duty of the Insurance Company to reimburse the complainant for the loss suffered and the entitlement of the complainant to the subsidy given by the State Government.

M.B. Shah, J:- President. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 3.8.1999 passed by the HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Original Complaint No. 13/1997, the HP Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. (HP Undertaking) has filed this appeal. Facts-2.

2. Undisputedly, the complainant has taken an insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 2,41,51,000/- from the respondent M/s United India, Insurance Company. On 2.9.1990, a devastating fire broke out in the factory premises and the stock along with building, material and furniture was destroyed in the said fire. On the basis of the information given by the complainant to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who submitted its report on 24.3.1992.

3. As per the report, the fire had badly burnt and/or extensively damaged the 1st and the 2nd floor of the building and the material which was kept therein. The surveyor has arrived at the conclusion that the cause of fire is not known. He assessed the lose at Rs. 47,48,100/- payable by the Insurance Company which included to sum of Rs. 9,07,750/- received by the complainant from the State Government as subsidy. In the said report it has been stated that the assured has agreed to receive the above figure of loss either on market value or at the subsidized rates and submitted the duly completed and signed claim form along with letter of consent.

4. The letter of consent is also produced on record wherein it has been stated by the complainant but they agreed to receive the amount of Rs. 47,48,100/- being full and final compensation to the loss caused to the building machinery, furniture, fixture and fittings and stocks on the market rates. It is also mentioned that if subsidy is deducted, the amount would come to Rs. 38,40350/-. The complainant has given consent for both methods adopted by the surveyor., is specifically stated that if the State Government would ask for refund of the subsidy amount i.e. Rs. 9.07,750/- and if refunded, the same will be paid by the insurer.

5. Despite the survey report and the aforesaid consent letter, the Insurance Company failed to pay the amount for years together on the ground that Magisterial Enquiry and the Police Enquiry with regard to the cause of fire and suspected arsenal, were pending Finally the amount of Rs. 37,74,064/- was paid on 16.8.1996 after taking an indemnify bond from the insured that in the event of any adverse finding of the Police is received, the amount would be refunded by the complainant.

6.It is to be stated that on 16.8.1996, the date when the cheque was given to the complainant wrote a letter to the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company stating that there was no justifiable ground for dedu8cting Rs. 9,74,036/-and Rs. 66,286/- hence, details thereof be supplied to the complainant. To that letter, a reply was given by the Insurance Company on 30.8.1996. Relevant part of that letter is as under: -

1. Towards difference in premium under the Policies on which claim has occurred as pointed out by surveyor at the time of assessment of loss. Rs. 18.546.00

2. Premium for Respondent instalment of sum insured under both the police in which claim has occurred as per Policy terms and condition Rs. 12,162.00

3. Recovery under Policy No. 111300 11/13/77/90 as pointed out by our internal auditors for the period ending 31.3.1991 Rs. 24,280.00

4. Recovery under Policy No. 3/01/006/89 as pointed out by our internal auditors for the period ending. Rs. 10,286.00 Total amount Rs. 66,286.00

7. As the dispute was net settled, the complainant was required to approach the State Commission by filing Complaint No.13 of 1997 in the year 1997. That was dismissed by the State Commission. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant is in appeal before us. Submissions:-

8. At the time of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there was no justifiable rea