Heard learned counsel for  the parties.

2.              This Complaint case  is  filed  U/S-17 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act) read with Section-12 of the Act.

3.                   The  unfolded story  of case  of the  complainant, is that  the complainant  for smooth and running of his business,  had purchased a policy from the OP covering the period from 24.03.2010 to 23.03.2011 for sum assured of Rs.30,00,000/-. It is alleged inter-alia that on 30.03.2010 the complainant  closed  the medicine store and  went home. Thereafter, at about 10.45 PM  the medicine store caught  fire  and the medicine and other assets were damaged  due to fire. Thereafter, the matter was informed to the police and   the Fire Officer. The complainant stated to have alleged before the OP for settlement of the claim but it was not settled.  Showing deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP  took the plea in their    written version stating that  the allegation with regard to purchase of the insurance policy is admitted. It is only averred that there is no any claim form filed  or document filed by the complainant to settle the claim.  Therefore, they have settled the claim as no claim. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.            From the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are  to be decided.

1) Whether  the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2)  Whether complainant is entitled to any compensation.

ISSUE NO.1

6.                      It is  settled that the complainant has to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  It is revealed from the evidence of the complainant  and the documents that the complainant has insured his medicine shop for sum assured of Rs.30,00,000/-  with the OP. It is also clear from the insurance policy  adduced by the complainant that the policy was subject to  fire and special perils and it was insurance for  the stock. Annexure-2 shows that  intimation for fire causing  damages to the stocks  of the medicines  etc. have been given.   It is submitted that the police has been informed immediately.  He has also filed policy  to prove  that the properties have been insured. The complainant had incurred loan from  the bank to his start this business. The correspondences between  parties and the documents  asked  for   have not been filed. The OP has filed the written version stating that they have got the claim but  could not proceed because  of non-filing  of documents. So, they have no deficiency in service on their  part.  In the Court  we have also  passed order on dt.26.10.2022 directing  the complainant to produce  the documents to the insurer who will settle the matter within no time. But it appears from the  documents filed  that the complainant already submitted  documents on dtd.05.11.2022  to insurer whereas the OP did not acknowledge  documents. However,  we are of the view that since the complainant has already  informed  to the insurer,  it is OP’s duty is  to visit the spot and assess the loss instead of sitting over the matter.  Since, the insurer has only sent letter to comply same but failed to settle, it itself  is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.                    Learned counsel for the complainant  submited that  when the documents  already conveyed in the  meantime, it  was  for the OP to settle the claim. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service  on the part of the OP for sitting  over the matter inspite of intervention of the Court. The above issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2

  8.                  As it appears  from the submission  of   both the counsels when  the complainant has stated to have submitted  documents  but  the OP is subjected to have received the documents, we are concerned for settlement   of the claim to protect the interest of the consumer.  When the complainant is interested  for  settlement of the claim due to  the deficiency in service, he is not entitled to any compensation but cost can be awarded.  Issue no.2 is answered accordingly.

9.            In view  of the discussion, we  hereby allow the complaint case with cost against the OP. It is hereby ordered that the OP would settle the claim of the complainant within 45 days  on receipt of the copies of  documents from the complainant, if any  failing which  the entire sum assured would be payable by the OP to the complainant with interest  @ 10 % thereon. Further OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-   towards cost to the complainant in the meantime.

               The complaint case is disposed of accordingly.

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.