Not satisfied with the order dated 14.10.09 passed by the UT Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission) in complaint case no. 9/98, the original complainant has filed the present appeal. The consumer dispute raised before the State Commission related to non-settlement of an insurance claim in respect of damage to an insured digital colour lab which was damaged in a fire on 23.04.07. The surveyor appointed by the insurance company to assess the loss/damage to the digital colour lab, assessed the loss at Rs.4,98,364/-. However, the State ..2.. Commission, going by the evidence and the material placed on record, partly allowed the complaint with the following order and directions:- 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.15,80,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from three months after the filing of the claim till actual payment. It is clarified that this interest only covers the loss suffered by the complainant for the delay in payment of the claim amount. OPs are, therefore, further directed to pay the complainant, in addition, a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation for physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant as well as for its financial loss. The OPs are also directed to pay the complainant the cost of litigation, which we quantify as Rs.5,100/-. It is directed that the above directions be complied with by the OPs within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 2. It is not disputed that the opposite party insurance company has accepted the order passed by the State Commission and had paid the entire amount including the compensation and cost to the complainant soon after passing of the impugned order. However, Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the order primarily on the ground that the amount of compensation so awarded by the State Commission is not just and adequate having regard to the cost of ..3.. machine and the extent of damage caused to it. In our view, this submission has no merit because the State Commission while deciding the complaint, has not gone fully by the assessment made by the Surveyor but has reached its own finding about the extent of damage to the machine in question by taking into account various factors by observing as under:- “ The surveyor, on one hand, has accepted that the loss to the machine is of Rs.15,80,000/- but has allowed only 32.5% of this loss because as per the surveyor, only 30% to 35% of the machine was found burnt. This contention of the surveyor cannot be accepted, as it is clearly on record that after the inspection of Digital Color Lab by Emson Imaging, the loss has been assessed to the tune of RS.16 Lacs approximately. More so, it is an admitted fact that the surveyor in question was not capable of correctly assessing the damage caused to the machine and it was for this reason that the machine had to be sent to Emson Imaging at Mumbai for the assessment of damage. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the survey report recommending payment of the claim to the extent of Rs.4,98,364/- only cannot be accepted. As per the Contract of Insurance, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant to the tune of actual loss suffered by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Admittedly, the loss in this case amounts to Rs.15,80,000/- as stated in the survey report. It is the choice of the insured whether he wants to get this machine repaired or not. In this case, since, the repairer is giving after repair warranty only for a period of 15 days after the repairs, the complainant is hesitant to get the ..4.. machine repaired under these circumstances. However, the complainant does remain entitled to receive indemnification for the loss suffered by it and it cannot be denied to it if it does not want to get the machine repaired. From the evidence on record, it is also clear that the OPs Insurance Company unduly delayed the assessment of damage caused to the insured machinery, which resultantly delayed the finalization of the claim. It is our considered view that the OPs are liable to assess the loss and they cannot take shelter behind the plea that the Complainant did not provide them the estimate of repairs. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs in delaying the finalization of the claim.” 3. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the State Commission and the order made is eminently justified because the State Commission has not only awarded a sum of Rs.15,80,000/- towards the damage to the insured machine but has also awarded a compensation of Rs.2 lakh for the deficiency in service in not settling the claim promptly. This should have satisfied the complainant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.