1. This appeal challenges the order dated 21/9/2010, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 113 of 2010 and thereby directing the OP No. 1/ appellant herein to pay the complainant/respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the date of the order passed,  insurance claim of Rs. 91,200/- with 6 percent interest to be imposed from the date of repudiation  that is 2/2/2010, in default the insurance claim would carry 9 percent interest thereon. The Forum also granted Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively.
2. Respondent No. 1 Mr. Arun Tukaram Dhumale to be referred as complainant and appellant Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd to be referred as OP No. 1 and respondent No. 2 Mr. Anil Gawali, agent TATA AIG Gen. Insurance Ltd. and respondent No. 3 Rajendra Burode, Surveyor to be referred as OP No 2 and 3 for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts as laid down by the complainant in his complaint are as under.

Complainant Mr. Arun Tukaram Dhumale is running a shop in the name and style Arun Tea & Coldrink Center at Pusad. He had taken an insurance policy for risk covered under “ Fire & Allied Perils” for the Shop Furniture and Fixtures and Fittings and Stock and Stock in process for a sum insured/limit of indemnityRs. 2,50,000/-. The said risk was covered from the period 9/4/2009 to 8/4/2010. It is a contention of the complainant that the OP No. 2 is the agent of OP No. 1 and he had after due inspection of the premises of the complainant had accepted the premium for the risk covered to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- It is further contended by the complainant thatin the night intervening 11/6/2009 and 12/6/2009. The shop of the complainantgot gutted in a fire and complete shop and the stock in the shop was destroyed. The complainant immediately lodged report with the concern Police Station and also filed a claim supported by the necessary documents with the OP No. 1 claiming insurance claim under the fire and Allied Perils Policy. The OP No. 1 by letter dated 2/2/2010 repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant as the “structure of the shop was not RCC (Steel frame completed with bricks) as warranted under the policy, but was a “Kuchha construction”, not confirming to the stipulations set under the warranty in the policy under reference. This being a breach of warranty. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 22/2/2010 to the OP No. 1 again calling upon him to pay the insurance claim. The OP No. 1, however by reply notice dated 17/3/2010 denied any claim under the insurance policy as it was in breach of warranty.

1. Being aggrieved and alleging deficiency in service the complainant filed a consumer complaint claiming risk under the insurance policy of Rs. 2,50,000/-. And compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and cost of proceedings.
2. The OP No. 1 resisted the complaint by filing its written version. OP No. 2 and 3 were proceeded exparte as they failed to appear before the Forum though served. The OP No. 1 in its written version denied all the adverse allegation of the complainant and specifically submitted that it had rightly repudiated the claim as it fell into breach of warranty as the risk covered under the policy was for “RCC/brick work structure aged< 30 years only is covered. Kutcha/temporary  structure , basement not covered.” And the claim sought by the complainant was for kuthca construction.
3. The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents on record partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has specifically observed that the surveyor report  filed on record reflects following endorsement in respect of warranties as “ We have not observed any breach of warranty/ policy condition at the time of our survey.” And as accepted the surveyor’s report who has accessed the loss at Rs. 91,200/-
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the OP No. 1 has filed this appeal and challenge the same on the ground that the Forum committed error by not considering the complete endorsement under the “warranties” clause of the surveyor’s report which reads further as “Issued this report without prejudice in respect of cause, nature and extent of loss/ damages and subject to the terms, conditions and exceptions under the policy.”
5. We heard counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1. Resp No. 2 and 3 were already proceeded exparte. We also perused the copy of written notes of arguments, copy of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record by both the parties.
6. The insurance policy, risk covered under the policy, the date of damage caused, the claim filed by the complainant is not disputed. We perused the copy of the insurance policy and find that at the end of the said documents, it reflects as

*Warranted that construction of insured premises is of fire proof steel frame and brick or better such as RCC and brick. *Warranted that there are no claims in last 3 years.

Though the insurance policy records this warranty, such warranty cannot be accepted especially when the insurer is denying to have conducted any inspection of the premises/shop covered under the risk in its written version. In our opinion when an insured is accepting the risk under some warranty conditions it is bound to take every step to see that the premium that he has accepted from the insured is in accordance with the warranty condition.

1.  We also perused the surveyor’s report in which the recording made under the head of “Warranties” clearly reflect we have not observed any breach of warranty/policy condition at the time of our survey. The subsequent observation in the said report being “Issued this report without prejudice in respect of cause, nature and extent of loss/ damages and subject to the terms, conditions and exceptions under the policy.”  Such observation can be said to be made just by way of precautionary measure. A surveyor’s report is an authenticated document being duly submitted after inspection and assessment.
2. For the foregoing reason we find no glaring infirmity, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and the Forum allowing the claim in terms of the surveyor’s report is sustainable in law and the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
3. In the result we proceed to pass the following order.
4.  

1. The appeal is dismissed
2. The impugned order dated 21/09/2010 in consumer complaint No. 113 of 2010 is confirmed.
3. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.