Delay of 44 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

             During the validity of the fire insurance policy and burglary insurance policy obtained by the appellant society covering stocks, buildings, furniture and fixtures etc., a fire broke out due to short circuit resulting into loss of Rs.51 Lac.  Appellant informed the respondent insurance company about the fire which deputed preliminary Surveyor who reported that a fire had taken place in which loss has been caused.  Insurance company, thereafter, appointed a Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor.  Despite completing all formalities by 15.10.2003 claim was not settled.  Being aggrieved appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission.

             During the pendency of the complaint, the Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor submitted his report assessing loss at Rs.28,30,574/-.

             State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the respondent insurance company to pay Rs.28,30,574/- to the appellant with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint

-3-

till realization.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.  State Commission in its order has observed as under:

             “There is another aspect that Ops on receipt of information regarding fire appointed their surveyor to conduct the preliminary investigation and preliminary investigation report is Ex.R2.  Though, in the preliminary investigation report the surveyor has made observations that the total stock of Rs.58,45,776/- was present, however, the insurance was only Rs.52,000,00/- while the final surveyor appointed by the opposite parties has also submitted their report.  The report of final surveyor is available on file Ex.R3.  The report of investigator M/s Royal Associates is on the file Ex.R4.  Mr. V. K. Kharbanda who was appointed as       final surveyor has given his report taking into consideration the report of preliminary investigation by Mr. Vishal K. Aggarwal as well as the report of investigator submitted by M/s Royal Associates and also considering the observations by investigator and considering and taking into consideration transaction which investigator submitted to be fake and excluding those has assessed the final loss at Rs.28,30,574/-.

             Opposite parties do not deny occurrence not to have taken place at all relying upon the report of their investigator M/s Royal Associates.  The argument raised was not since some transactions were not genuine which

-4-

             were reported to have been made fake by Sh.Madan Lal Sharma, Secretary, therefore, the entire claim should be rejected.  This argument cannot be accepted when the Ops do not deny the occurrence and also do not deny the loss.  The dispute was with respect to quantum of laws which Sh. V. K. Kharbanda final surveyor has worked out taking into consideration the preliminary investigation report as well as the report of their investigator.  Opposite parties do not challenge the report of their own investigator, therefore, at least to that extent opposite parties were liable to pay the claim.

             This is an admission by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are bound by their own admissions.  It is not disputed that the report of final surveyor was submitted by considering all those transactions, which the investigator had to be found fake and thus was certainly taken care of and excluding from the transactions of the claim.  So, the complaint is entitled to get Rs.28,30,574/- from the opposite parties in respect of loss suffered along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim.

             In view of the above discussion, the present complaint succeeds.  We hereby allow the present complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.28,30,574/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.  Cost of litigation to the sum of Rs.2000/- is also awarded to the complainant to be paid by Ops.  The order shall be complied with

-5-

             within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order.”

             Complainant/appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of amount awarded.  Counsel for the appellant in spite of repeated asking could not either find fault with the report of the Surveyor or refer to any evidence from which it could be adduced that the loss suffered by the appellant was more than what has been assessed by the Surveyor.  No merits.  Dismissed.