ORDER

1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Himachal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (“the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 11 of 2016, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was partly allowed.

2.      There was a delay of 34 days for filing the present Appeal. For the reasons stated in the Application seeking condonation of delay being IA No. 1724 of 2018, the same is condoned.

3.      For the sake of Convenience, the parties in the present matter being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. The Complainant, M/s Sohal Enterprises through its Proprietor Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sohal, is in the business of scrap dealing for about 12 years to earn his livelihood and hired the premises for scrap Godown from Smt. Vijay Kumari. While The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd and The Branch Manager are referred to as the Opposite Parties /Insurer (OPs in short).

4.      The brief relevant facts of the case, as per the Complainant are that the Complainant’s Scrap Store was insured with the OPs for Rs.50.00 Lakhs under a ‘Standard Fire and Special Peril’ policy from 02.07.2013 to 01.07.2014. The firm diligently paid the premium of Rs.32,304 to the OPs. Tragically, on the night of 14.02.2014, a fire broke out in the Godown, resulting in complete destruction. Promptly, the incident was reported to both the police and the OPs. The OPs appointed Shri Pramod Kumar as spot Assessor. He visited the spot, however his Report, if any, was never made public by the OPs. Subsequently, Shri Sanjeev Mahajan, an independent Surveyor, conducted physical inspection, identifying a short-circuit as the probable cause of the fire that severely damaged the stocks of Iron, Gatta, and plastic scrap. The surveyor also affirmed that there was no breach of warranties by the Respondent and assessed the loss as Rs.24,57,905, after adjustments. The OPs further appointed Shri Surinder Kumar Soni, a Chartered Accountant, to reassess the damages. He reassessed the loss at Rs. 12,83,989. However, despite multiple visits to OPs office and repeated requests, the claim was not settled, thereby demonstrating deficiency in service. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint and sought relief, which included payment of Rs. 50.00 Lakhs as per the policy and compensation and costs.

5.      The OPs/Insurer countered the Complainant's claim by filing a reply before the learned State Commission, asserting that there is no deficiency in service. They contended that Complainant has no cause of action against the OPs. The Complainant concealed material facts from the Commission and sought legal recourse, without full disclosure. The OPs asserted that while the stock within the Godown was insured, the items kept outside were not covered by the policy. The OPs appointed Shri Sanjeev Mahajan as Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who conducted an immediate site visit on the following day. As per the report dated 29.01.2015 furnished by Shri Sanjeev Mahajan, the Complainant had incurred Rs.24,57,905 loss. The said report had significant disparities in figures between sales, purchases, stocks recorded in VAT returns and bank statements. Further, the audited accounts for the financial years 2012, 2013, and 2014 showcased a continuous decline in sales. Thereafter, the Appellant sent a letter dated 02.02.2016 seeking clarification from the Respondent regarding discrepancies in sales and purchase figures. In their reply, the Respondent vide letter dated 12.02.2016 stated that the stock presented by them to the loss assessor included stock held by debtors (credit sales pending payment), indicating that the stock in the statement comprised items not in the Godown but sold to buyers without payment receipt. Thereafter, the OPs appointed Shri Surender Kumar Soni, a Char