ORDER

HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

       Taken up through video conferencing.

1.    This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’), challenging the Order dated 22.09.2015 in C. C. No. 207 of 2010 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (the ‘State Commission’).

2.    Heard arguments from Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant (the ‘Complainant Firm’) and Mr. S. M. Tripathi, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (the ‘Insurance Co.’).

Vide Order dated 28.08.2017, the Respondent No. 2 (the ‘Surveyor’) was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

Perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 22.09.2015 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.  

3.    In the interest of justice, to settle the matter on merit, the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.    Admitted facts, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that the Complainant Firm took an insurance policy to cover its plant and machinery, electrical installations and stock–in-trade. The premium was paid. The policy was valid. An incident of fire took place on 24.12.2005. The Insurance Co. was intimated. Survey was conducted. The Complainant Firm made a claim of Rs. 17,00,000/-. The Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. assessed the loss at Rs. 1,54,500/-. The Complainant Firm failed to submit the relevant record for verification, as mentioned in the Surveyor’s Report. The Insurance Co. filed the claim as ‘no claim’. Aggrieved, the Complainant Firm professed a Complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 22.09.2015 allowed the Complaint at the loss assessed by the Insurance Co.’s Surveyor i.e. at Rs. 1,54,500/- and awarded the said amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 06.12.2010 to be made good within 30 days of its Order failing which the rate of interest would be 12% per annum.

5.    The State Commission dismissed the Insurance Co.’s argument of ‘no claim’ and allowed the claim at par with the loss assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. It awarded the said amount (Rs.1,54,500/-) with reasonable interest at reasonable terms (9% per annum within 30 days of the Order, 12% per annum thereafter).

The Complainant Firm appealed before this Commission for enhancement in compensation, specifically for accepting its claimed loss of Rs.17,00,000/-.

6.    Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel for the Complainant Firm argued that the Surveyor had not conducted its investigation and assessment correctly.

7.    Mr. S. M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. argued that the Surveyor had made a correct assessment of the loss. The Insurance Co., though it initially filed the claim as ‘no claim’ in the absence of relevant record being furnished for verification by the Complainant Firm, has now complied with the Award made vide the State Commission’