ORDER

1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was dismissed.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 15 days in filing this Appeal. As per records, the copy of the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 was received by the Appellant/Complainant on 16.02.2018. While the prescribed limitation for filing the Appeal is 30 days, the same would be counted from the date of receipt of the impugned order i.e. 16.02.2018 and this period lapsed on 17.03.2018. As the present Appeal was filed on 16.03.2018, there is no delay.

3.      For the sake of Convenience, the parties in the present matter being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. “M/s Vivek Traders” is identified as the Complainant.  "National Insurance Company Ltd." is referred to as the Opposite Parties/Insurer (OPs in short).

4.  The Complainant is a proprietorship firm owned by Mr.Vivek Kumawat engaged in the retail/wholesale business of foam, pillow, furniture beds and handloom material, including the building of the shop/showroom and situated at College Road, Beawar.

5.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant are that he obtained an Insurance Policy No.370702/48/15/9800000407 for shopkeepers from the Respondent No.1/OP-1 for the period from 25.07.2015 to 24.07.2016 for a sum insured of building Rs.50 Lakh, contents Rs.50 Lakh, burglary and housebreaking Rs.50 Lakh, Money in transit Rs.50,000, money in till/counter Rs.10,000, plate glass Rs.1 Lakh and Neon & Glow Sign Rs.10,000. He paid the premium of Rs.19,317. During the validity of the Insurance Policy, a fire incident occurred on 14.12.2015 at the insured premises. The Complainant promptly informed Fire Station and the Police Station. Against the claim of total loss, the OP appointed Surveyor who determined the loss as Rs.64,28,670. On 07.11.2016, the OP sent a letter dated 07.11.2016 asking for a satisfaction voucher to settle the claim at Rs.64,28,670 for full and final satisfaction and he accepted the same on 14.11.2016. It was alleged that the Satisfaction Voucher accepting Rs.64,28,670 "without prejudice" was sent to the OP. Allegedly, on 24.11.2016, the OP transferred Rs.64,27,062 to the Complainant, after deducting Rs.1608.

6.      The Complainant immediately protested the deficient payment of Rs.22,79,000 towards the claim of the building and Rs.5,38,000 towards disallowed the claim against debris removal vide several emails. However, the OPs rejected the same on 17.02.2017. The Respondents/OP failed to promptly settle the claim as per the IRDA Act, allowing the Complainant to continue their business without hindrance. The Complainant filed the Complaint seeking the following: -

7.      The Respondents/OPs in their reply before the learned State Commission contended that Rs.64,28,670 was received by the Complainant as full and final settlement and thus, the complaint is not maintainable and further in the same building M/s. Vinayak Handloom was also running its business hence 50% deduction of the amount for the assessed loss of building was rightly made and the complaint should be dismissed.

8.      The learned State Commission considered the facts and contentions averred and dismissed the Complaint.

9.      In his arguments in the present Appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant comprehensively reiterated the facts outlined in the original complaint and asserted that the Respondents actions constitute a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, as outlined by the IRDA Rules and various Orders of this Commission. The loss suffered by the Complainant falls squarely within the terms and