Aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2004 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in original complaint No. 7 of 2001, the opposite party-United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed the complainant-M/s New Light Furniture Industry (respondent herein) and has directed the appellant-insurance company to indemnify the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs.3,04,000/-. 2. The consumer dispute raised by the complainant in its complaint was in regard to the non-settlement of the insurance claim arising out of an insurance policy, under which the insured stock of timber etc. was damaged due to fire. The insurance company had repudiated the claim primarily on the ground that the premises where the fire had taken place damaging certain timber and other article, was not covered by the insurance policy in question. The complaint was also resisted by the insurance company on the same ground. The State Commission on its own reading and consideration of the evidence and material produced on record, repelled the said plea of the insurance company holding that the damage was caused to the timber and other articles of trade and loss occasioned to the complainant on that account, was covered under the policy in question and, therefore, partly allowed the complaint in the above terms. 3. We have heard Mr. A. K. De, learned counsel representing the appellant/insurance company and Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the insurance company would assail the findings and order of the State Commission, primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has supported the order. 4. It is not in dispute that the complainant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of wooden and other type of furniture articles at three places viz. village Jully (Mohal), Tehsil & District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and at Saw mill, upper portion of Mohal village, Mandi Kullu, National Highway and about 5 kilometers from Kullu, and also at a nearby village Bhunther. It is also not disputed that the United India Insurance Company Ltd. had issued two insurance policies, one taken by Punjab National Bank (Near Masjid Kullu) in account of M/s New Light Furniture Industry through Jhabe Ram and Smt. Hiraben. In the first policy in account of M/s New Light Furniture Industries taken on 16.11.1999, there is coverage of one shed of ‘A’ class construction in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, machinery in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and stock of new and old material and woods of trade in the sum of Rs.4 lakh. It is, however, important to note that the detailed description of the premises either by number or exact location is not given in this policy. The complainant’s case is that the claim for indemnification of the loss suffered by the complainant due to the fire was covered under this policy and, therefore, the other policy is not relevant for deciding the matter. According to the complainant, this policy covers the stock of timber, which was lying at the saw mill which he had hired from Smt. Kamla Devi and Raj Kumar w.e.f. 18.8.1998 and, therefore, damaged stock was covered by the policy in question. The first Surveyor, Manoj Kumar, who visited the spot however, made the following remarks in regard to the place(s) where loss had occurred and the place which was covered under the policy in question: “It is recorded for the insurers information that as per my enquiries and investigation, the insured was running two industries (Saw Mill & New Light Furniture Ind. ) and both the industries situated at Mohal. Insured raised the Cash Credit Limit (CC Limit) from the P.N.B. Kullu (Masjid Gali) for his new Light Furniture Industry. I visited the both the industries after occurrence and found that the building of M/s New Light Furniture Industry, Mohal was found intact and no fire had occurred there and is also evident in the photographs which are enclosed herewith for your information and records please. The second concern (Saw mill unit) which is partnership concerned of Smt. Kamla Devi and Raj Kumar who has entered into an agreement with Shri Jhabe Ram (insured). The saw mill unit had caught fire and suffered loss due to fire. It is also mentioned in the fire brigade and police report as submitted by the insured. As this concerned was not insured and not covered under the insurance covernote No. 607826 dated 16.11.1999. As such the loss is not covered under the policy and the insurer is not liable to pay the loss. “ 5. It would appear that subsequently another Surveyor, Surinder Kumar Soni, Chartered Accountant was appointed, who also observed that the complainant was carrying on the business of furniture making at two places i.e. village Jully (Mohal), Tehsil & District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and another at Saw mill, upper portion of Mohal village, Mandi Kullu, National Highway and about 5 kilometers from Kullu and also at a nearby village Bhunther. On the basis of said report, the insurance company repudiated the claim as they found that the stock of timber, which was damaged due to fire was lying at the sawmill belonging to Smt. Kamla Devi and Shri Raj Kumar for which no insurance cover had been obtained by the complainant. Further that the insurance policy relied upon by the complainant in order to make the claim related to the stock of material lying at a different premises where the insured was carrying on his business of furniture under the name and style of New Light Furniture Industry. 6. This controversy was, required to be answered but it appears that neither of the parties led any cogent evidence to establish that the stock of timber lying at the saw mill was or was not covered by the insurance policy in question. Learned counsel representing both the sides expressed their keen desire and prayed that they may be afforded opportunity to lead further evidence qua their respective pleas. Counsel for the respondent-complainant also prayed for permission to file the site plan of the insured premises in order to rule out any confusion in regard to exact premises and the stocks lying therein, which was covered under the policy in question. Both sides agree that their case may be remitted back to the State Commission with liberty to the parties to lead further evidence so that the controversy is finally settled. We consider it expedient to grant the prayer. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is remitted back to the board of State Commission for deciding the same afresh after affording due opportunity to the parties to lead their further evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 16.08.2010 for receiving further directions. The State Commission is requested to decide the complaint as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it.