Heard learned counsel for  the parties.

2.              This Complaint case  is  filed  U/S-17 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act) read with Section-12 of the Act.

3.                   The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant, in order to maintain his livelihood  started the business of sale of mobile phone accessories, pen drives  etc. It is alleged that the complainant in order to ensure safety and security of business has purchased the Fire insurance Shopkeepers policy covering the period from 13.02.2013 to 12.02.2014.  It is alleged that on   28^th and 29^th June,2013 the fire broke out in the shop room  and by that the products stored in  the shop room  were damaged by fire. The complainant lodged the FIR. Thereafter the matter was informed to the insurer. The insurer engaged the surveyor who asked for document , complainant allegedly supplied documents but the OP did not settle the matter. Showing deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP     filed the written version stating  that  they have deputed the surveyor but  the surveyor asked for documents which are not supplied by the complainant. The Surveyor’s report remained pending due to latches  of the complainant.  It is averred that the complainant  has falsely  claimed compensation for Rs.29,45,530/-.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

.5.                       After going through the pleadings of  both the parties, the following issues are  to be discussed.

i) whether the complainant has  proved the deficiency in service  on the part of the OP.

ii) whether  the complainant is entitled to compensation.

ISSUE NO.1

6.                     It is settled  in law that the complainant has to prove his case. In the instant case the complainant had purchased the  Fire Insurance Shopkeeper’s policy  from the OP   with conveyance  of fine and perils.   It is admitted fact that on 28^th / 29^th June,2013 the fire broke out in the shop room  of the complainant  and the products stored in the shop room were completely damaged. It is not in dispute that the after  the fire incident, the matter was informed to the police and the insurer who deputed the surveyor. The complainant, in order to prove his case has produced  the policy which shows that the all the products like mobile accessories, gift items, snacks and furniture were insured for the above period. It appears from Section-1(b) of the policy that  it also covers the fire and perils.  It also  appears from the entire complaint that on the next day  of  fire incident the FIR has been lodged. The Insurance Company in their letter dtd.23.07.2013 and  surveyor asked complainant to produce the documents. Again he asked for documents on 21.03.2014. It also appears from the  letter  of this complaint that he has produced  documents vide Annexure-5 which is available on 18.06.2014.Thereafter it appears that matter was not settled. The OP simply took the plea that they have not settled because of the non-cooperation of complainant.

7.              In view of  aforesaid discussion, we find that  when the surveyor’s  letter  found that there is causing delay in asking for documents. Thus, sitting over the matter for not settling the matter  by the OP is deficiency in service proved by the  complainant. Thus, issue no.1 is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2

8.               With  regard to compensation,  we are of the view that  when  the deficiency in service is proved by the complainant, it is required to settle the claim.  This is a matter of 2013 and the matter remained pending  till now  inspite of notice  to the Opp.Party. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment. It is made clear  that no further document is required  to prove his case.  Therefore, complainant is directed to produce document before OP within 30 days from today and Op would settle same within 30 days from the date of receipt of documents. OP is further directed to pay settled amount  to complainant  within 7 days  from the date of settlement. Further OP is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- within 30 days from today to complainant as compensation and pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. All amount would be paid within the period as discussed  above. If none of  compensation  or any compensation  delayed, failing which they would carry interest @ 8 %  per annum.

                  The  complaint case is disposed of accordingly.

                  Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.