ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

1. This appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against judgment and order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pithoragarh in consumer complaint No. 12 of 2010 styled as Sh. Basant Ballabh Punera vs. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 4,00,248/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of judgment and order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of consumer complaint till actual payment. Besides it, the opposite party shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

2. Brief facts of the present appeal are as such that the complainant Sh. Basant Ballabh Punera, proprietor of grocery shop, had obtained a cash credit facility of Rs. 4 Lacs from State Bank of India, Pithoragarh. The stock kept in the shop was insured with the opposite party under insurance policy No. 420902/48/09/34/00003599 having sum insured of Rs. 6 Lacs, which was valid from 15.12.2009 to 14.12.2010. On dated 21.12.2009 at about 3 a.m., a fire allegedly caused by the short-circuit broke out in the said shop, resulting in extensive damage amounting to Rs. 4,00,247/- to the grocery shop. The complainant lodged necessary report with the Police and Fire Authorities and also submitted a claim with the opposite party. The fire officer assessed the loss at Rs. 3,75,000/-. The opposite party appointed a surveyor and on dated 24.12.2009, the surveyor after spot inspection and verification assessed the loss and assured the complainant that the claim of Rs. 4 Lacs would be recommended and processed by the Insurance Company. However, after applying deduction under the policy, the Insurance Company settled the claim only for Rs. 57,316/-, which was credited to the complainant’s bank account at State Bank of India, Pithoragarh. Aggrieved by alleged inadequate settlement of the claim and alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a present complaint before the District Commission, Pithoragarh.

3. The opposite party filed its written statement denying all the allegations levelled in the complaint and contended that the complainant failed to produce any reliable evidence or spot assessment substantiating the quantum of loss claimed by him. It has been pleaded that upon receiving intimation of the incident, the answering opposite party appointed an independent surveyor, who visited the site, conducted a detailed inspection of the damaged premises, took photographs and gathered information from the concerned persons and thereafter submitted report to the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party further contended that according to surveyor assessment, the net loss payable under the policy was determined at Rs. 62,148.25 which after applying relevant policy terms / conditions and permissible deduction reduced to Rs. 57,316/-. The answering opposite party further submitted that the complainant accepted the said assessment without protest and executed the requisite discharge voucher in token of full and final settlement of the claim. It was further averred that the assessment amount of Rs. 57,316/- was remitted to the complainant vide cheque No. 03171 dated 29.03.2010 and credited to complainant’s loan account maintained with State Bank of India, Pithoragarh. On the basis of aforesaid fact, the answering opposite party asserted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 01.03.2021 wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed.

5. On having been aggrieved