The insurer must resolve claims in a timely and fair manner, supported by adequate documentation, as upheld by the Consumer Protection Act.

1. The present cross Appeals are filed by the Appellants under S.19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short ˜the State Commission') in CC No. 08 of 2007 dated 10.5.2018. First Appeal No. 1401 of 2018 has been filed by the Appellant / Insurance Company with a delay of 54 days as per the report of the Registry, however, as per the Appellant / Insurance Company the delay is 53 days. First Appeal No. 1498 of 2019 has been filed by M/s Himachal Pharmaceuticals Limited with a delay of 401 days, as per report of the Registry. However, as per the Appellant / Complainant, the delay is of 364 days. For the reasons stated in both the applications and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.

2. Complainant is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and sale of Pharmaceuticals Drugs at its factory in Kandrori, Kangra District, Himachal Pradesh. The unit was started after obtaining loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pathankot. Complainant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Risks Policy, valid from 13.4.2005 to 12.4.2006. According to the Complainant, the unit suffered extensive damage due to fire which broke out on 25.10.2005. On receiving information of the fire, the Opposite Party appointed a Surveyor, who visited the spot on 28.11.2005. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,07,447.47. However, the Complainant filed a claim of Rs. 20,19,689 along with Rs. 2 lakh for mental agony and Rs. 35,000 for litigation cost. In spite of voluminous correspondence between the Parties, claim of the Complainant was not settled. Therefore, the Complainant filed Complaint before the State Commission with following prayer:
¢ That this complaint may kindly be allowed and this Commission may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party “ Insurance Company to pay to the complainant;
¢ The indemnification amount of Rs. 20,9,689 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 25.10.2005 till the date of actual payment;
¢ A sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for mental torture and harassment suffered by the complainant;
¢ A sum of Rs. 35,000 as cost of litigation.

3. The case was contested by the Opposite Party who contended that the Complainant had been a defaulter in making payment to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pathankot, and therefore, had been declared NPA in 2004. It was admitted that fire took place in the Complainant's unit on 25.10.2005 and Mr Duggal Gupta, Surveyors Private Limited was deputed to assess the loss. He submitted report on 15.1.2007 assessing the loss at Rs. 1,07,447.47 and a cheque for Rs. 1,06,905 was issued in the name of the Complainant's banker, Oriental Bank of Commerce. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and therefore the Complaint be dismissed.

4. The Consumer Complaint was decided by the State Commission on 28.8.2009, as follows:
32.In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that in the ordinary course of things, claim of the complainant should have been settled expeditiously by the opposite party - Insurance Company and it cannot be made to shift the burden or to wash off its hands by raising the plea that the complainant failed to provide necessary documents to the surveyor appointed to assess the loss. If this was the situation, nothing prevented the opposite party to have the closed the file.
33. It hardly needs to be emphasized in this context that as a limb of the welfare state, wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India who also have pervasive cont