Heard learned counsel for both the sides.   

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 case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is the proprietor of Mahanta Service Station, Nayagarh and had purchased a policy from the opposite party for his Petrol Pump, building, boundary wall and the machinery with a sum assured at Rs. 36,00,000/- covering the period from 23.7.2013 till 22.7.2014. It is alleged inter alia that on 29.7.2013, due to heavy rain and overflowing of water from Balangibandha as well as water logging the boundary wall of the Service Station was collapsed. He intimated the matter to the insurer who also deputed a surveyor but did not settle the claim. Subsequently, a letter was received by the complainant that the opposite parties have settled the claim as ‘no claim’. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complaint petition.

4.      The opposite party filed the written version stating that there was no cause of action for the complainant to file complaint petition as it is not maintainable. The opposite party admitted about the purchase of insurance policy by the complainant. Further case of the opposite party is that the allegation of the complainant is false and there is no documentary evidence about overflowing of water from  Balangibandha. However, they have deputed a surveyor who has computed the loss. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

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

                            xxxxx         xxxxx

       “ The complaint is allowed in part on contest. The O.P. is directed to pay the  damage cost of Rs. 60,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order  failing which he shall pay the interest @ 12% per annum on the damage cost till its realisation.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum passed the impugned order without considering the written version and the policy in question with proper perspectives. He submitted that the alleged occurrence is not covered by the policy. Further he submitted that the opposite party has deputed the surveyor and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law for which he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has purchased a Policy “Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” which covers Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and inundation and other ancillary type of natural calamities and the property in question has been covered by the risk of the insurance policy. Therefore, he submitted that learned District Forum rightly passed the impugned order and the same should be confirmed.

8.      Considered the submissions, perused the D.F.R. and the impugned order.

9.      Now the question left to be decided as to whether the policy covers the risk as alleged. It is admitted fact that during the currency of the policy, there was heavy rain and overflowing of water from Balangibandha and for that there is damage to the boundary wall of the Petrol Pump of the complainant. The Policy in question was produced during the time of hearing. It appears that the policy covers Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood excluding those resulting from earthquake. Non-settling of the claim and the report of the surveyor with regard to no claim are the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus, the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

10.    With regard to computation of loss, survey report has been filed before the learned District Forum and it appears that he has computed the loss at Rs. 60,000/-. Learned District Forum awarded that amount as compensation. Therefore, we have no objection to the computation of loss. It is well settled in law that surveyor’s report can be reliable if there is no infirmity. Therefore, we accept the surveyor’s report and the complainant is entitled for compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the compensation amount may kindly be considered or may be reduced.

11.    In view of the fact that the Surveyor has computed the loss and the opposite party is liable to pay the same to the complainant. Therefore, we modify the impugned order by directing the opposite party to  pay Rs.10,000/- as cost instead of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. Hence, while confirming the order of the learned District Forum, we modify the impugned order by directing the opposite party to pay Rs.60,000/- (Sixty Thousand) as interim compensation and        Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost within 45 days from today failing which the amount will carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of impugned order till the date of payment.

          The appeal is dismissed.

           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.