Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.     This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.     The unshorn  details of the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a manufacturer of wheat product and for the safety of his business purchased  the Fire Insurance ‘C’ policy for sum assured of Rs.20,00,000/- on payment of required premium covering the risk from 31.12.1998 to 30.12.1999. It is alleged inter alia that on 17.10.1999,  there was severe cyclone for which the stocks were damaged. Complainant informed the fact to the OP. As no action was taken the complaint was filed.

4.     OP filed written version admitting that they have issued the policy in favour of the complainant  and as per the policy he deposited the premium. Since the complainant did not supply the documents, the  survey could not be completed and as such they have repudiated the claim as ‘No Claim’. However, they have computed the loss. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.     After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum Passed the following order:-

                “xxx   xxx   xxx

In view of our above observations, we direct the OP to make payment of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant towards net loss as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @9% per annum from the date of loss  till full payment with litigation cost of Rs.500/- payable within one month of receipt of this order”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the OP. It is also admitted fact that on 31.12.1998 on payment of premium the fire policy was purchased. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the policy itself which is also plea of the OP for not having approved the same by the Divisional Manager. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law involved in this case. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.     Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

8.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.     It is admitted fact that the complainant has insured the stocks. It is also admitted fact that on 17.10.1999 there was cyclone and stocks were damaged for which it was informed to the OP – insurer. The only question is whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.   The claim has been made immediately after the occurrence but the OP remained silent by not settling the claim. It is settled in law that whenever the claim is made and same is not persuaded by the insurer  but kept pending, it is itself deficiency in service on the part of the OP. However, the OP has taken plea that  with regard to the acceptance of FST Clause,  they have not obtained the approval of Divisional Manager. This plea is not valid plea. Moreover, after getting information the insurer has deputed the surveyor who computed the loss. Had there been no policy, OP would not have deputed surveyor to compute loss. But here OP  asked for documents, just to avoid the delay for settlement of claim. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not  settling the claim on vexatious ground.

11.   Besides, the  surveyor has computed the loss at Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is settled in law that the report of the surveyor should be the basis for settlement of the claim. We have perused the same. We do not find any error on the same. Therefore, Rs.1,10,000/- should be payable by the OP to the complainant.

12.   In view of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.  No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.