Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The unfolded story of the complainant is that in order to maintain his livelihood has opened a whole selling fertilizer shop at Ankula near RMC market complex for the stock of fertilizers and pesticides. The complainant has also purchased a policy under standard fire and special perils policy from the O.P. for covering the risk period from 25.11.2013 to 24.11.2014. The said shop was also insured with the opposite party. It is alleged that the godown of the complainant got damaged on 5.8.2014 at 5.15 P.M. by the over flooding of water of Baitarani river. On 6.8.2014, the complainant intimated the fact to the insurer with regard to the loss sustained by him and also submitted all relevant papers regarding damage. The opposite party deputed a Surveyor, who estimated the loss at Rs. 5,7,138/-, but finally assessed the loss amounting to Rs. 60,000/-. The complainant did not agree to accept the same and claimed Rs. 6,01,938/- as damages. Since the amount is not paid by the opposite party, the present complaint petition is filed.

4.        The opposite party filed written version stating that they have co-operated the Surveyor who has assessed the loss taking the stock position. The policy sum assured was Rs. 10,00,000/- but the complainant kept the stock of fertilizer, pesticides and seeds amounting to Rs. 59,15,306/-. Moreover, there is fabrication of the material in the body of the application for which the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

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

                     xxxxx                     xxxxx

              “ The dispute is allowed against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 6.01,938/- as insurance claim of the petitioner vide policy no. 55070011130100000155 within one month after receipt of the order, failing which the awarded amount will carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the dispute till the payment is made. No cost.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum passed the impugned order by not considering the written version and evidence on record. According to him, the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.60,000/- to which the complainant is entitled to. He also submitted that the sum assured is Rs.10,00,000/- and hence the amount of compensation as ordered by the learned District Forum is disproportionate. Further, he submitted that the impugned order is a mechanical one and does not disclose the fact and law. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.        Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order has been passed appropriately and the same should be confirmed.

8.        Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.        It is admitted fact that during the currency of the policy, damage took place to the stock of fertilizer, pesticides  etc. of the shop of the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss.

10.     The only dispute arises as to whether the Surveyor’s report is correct for assessment of loss at Rs. 60,000/-. We have gone through the Surveyor’s report marked as Annexure-C. It appears  from the Surveyor’s report that the estimated loss assessed by the Surveyor is at Rs. 5,07,138.00, but thereafter, he has adjusted the loss by giving some reasons which comes to Rs. 60,000/-.

11.     At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the adjustment of loss by the Surveyor on the basis of more stock against the amount of the sum assured. Whatever may be the amount of stock but the limitation for claiming damage is limited to sum assessed at Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the complaint case. Therefore, we are of the view that as per the report of the Surveyor, the complainant is actually entitled to Rs. 5,07,138.00. The complainant has claimed the damages at Rs. 6,01,938/- but there is no material to show that he is entitled to get the said amount. However, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 5,07,138.00. Since the amount is not paid to the complainant, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, we modify the impugned order by directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,07,138.00 to the complainant within a period of 45 days, failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made. The rest of the impugned order shall remain unaltered.

12.     The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 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.