BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AT BELLARY

C.C.No.34 of 2018      

Present :  

     (1)  Shri.A.H.Malaghan. B.com. LLB.(Spl),  …… President.

     (2)  Shri.H.Veera Shekar. B.A. LLb.(Spl),    ……. Member.

     (3)  Smt. Marla Shashikala. B.com. LLB.      .…… Member.

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF DECEMBER-2020

// O R D E R //

Per Sri.A.H.Malaghan.

          1. This is a complaint filed the complainant against the respondent U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking damages caused to his stock & machinery from Opponent.

           2.    The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant in order to lead his livelihood he had put a manufacturing unit of Agarabathies in the name and style of M/s Sri Angala Shiva Parameswari Aromatics  at Husain Nagar  in Ballari, and later, shifted to City press compound.  The complainant was unemployed and then he had attended the training at Directorate of Industries and has taken the License to run the Unit.  The complainant has availed the loan to run the factory from the Union Bank of India Ballari, and the said Bank has sanctioned a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- for purchase of plant and machinery and for purchase of materials, he had installed the factory under PMEGP Scheme. The complainant has purchased Machinery from Safety Zone Technologies Secunderabad, in the year 2015 i.e., 04-06-2015 worth Rs.12,90,937/-. This machinery was installed at Ballari by the said Safety Technologies and C.F. Industries from Bangalore and he had purchased some more machinery on the same day for a sum of Rs.3,18,036/- total he purchased a machinery worth of Rs.16,08,973/- in all.   After installation of the machinery had started to run the business by employing some employees for the work, and out of amount earned, he used to pay the finance installments interest, rent of the building salaries to the workers and the remaining balance amount was used for his livelihood for the maintenance of his family.  The complainant is doing the business since its establishment i.e., from April-2015, he was the stockiest for Swastik Masala Food Products Bangalore since many years and also doing Agarabathies business since from its establishment, the complainant had taken training in the said industry at Bangalore for a period of 1 year in various aspects of Manufacturing Agarabathies, its processing and packing and also maintaining the labours in all respects for improvement in business for his lively hood.  The complainant herein has covered the insurance for his said plant, machinery and Accessories, he had also insured entire stock in trade present in the factory and the same was insured with the respondent’s insurance company.  The respondent had issued the insurance policy in favour of i.e., M/s Sri Angala Shiva Parameswari Aromatics, being the policy No.68060011160100000199, the period of insurance is from 02-08-2016 to 01-08-2017.  The insurance was done for a sum of Rs.15,61,000/- for plant and machinery and Accessories. But, material and stock was insured for Rs.6,00,000/-.  The complainant has paid the premium amount of Rs.3,355/- and covered his machinery and stock in trade worth Rs.21,61,000/-.   On  16-03-2017 as usual after the completion of working hours at about 9-30 pm., he has duly locked the above factory and left for his house, on 17-03-2017 when the workers come to the factory at about 9-00 am., they saw some smoke was coming out of the window of the said factory and they called/intimated to the complainant about the smoke coming out in the unit and immediately the complainant went to his unit and informed the concerned authorities i.e., Fire Bridge, Insurance Company and Police authorities regarding the fire accident which had taken place in his factory. The workers and the complainant tried to put off the flames until the fire bridge came to the spot, some of the items were destroyed in the factory and when the fire bridge people had extinguished the fire consequently all the machinery which are electrical items were became defunct and useless.  As on the date of accident i.e., 17-03-2017 the stock of materials and the finished and unfinished goods worth Rs.7,64,951/- were destroyed. The plant & machinery destroyed in the accident is estimated at Rs.14,25,398/-.  The complainant informed C.F. Industries and also Safety Zone Technologies Secunderabad, the Safety Zone Technologies had informed the C.F. Industries to visit the accident place and verify the machinery, the C.F. Industries from Bangalore had come all the way for inspection since they have supplied the machinery and also materials, as per the estimation done by the C.F. Industries, the loss estimated for plant and machinery is about Rs.14,25,398/-.  After the fire accident had occurred he has informed the insurance company and later on insurance surveyor has come to the spot and took the photos and estimated the loss and as per his report the stock of materials worth Rs.1,91,487/- and the loss for plant and machinery is Rs.4,00,338/- total loss is estimated at Rs.5,91,825/- which is very much less and not accepted by the complainant, more over the surveyor has assessed the loss as per his whims and fancy and the surveyor has not checked every parts, he has seen the overall machinery and guessed the loss and estimated at the very low price.  The complainant was forced to collect the cheque/NEFT/RTGS for Rs.5,53,890/- and received the cheque “under protest”, as he has not satisfied by the survey report given by the respondent’s surveyor.  The loss estimated towards plant and machinery is only Rs.4,00,338/-, while extinguished the fire from the factory, the water entered into the machinery and the machinery cannot be repaired at all and if it is repaired then the cost will be more than the cost of machinery, it was informed to the insurance company and also the surveyor, but they did not care for the complainant.  The complainant had removed all the machinery from the accident spot and kept it in a separate go-down and paying a rent of Rs.7,000/- per month.  The complainant has intimated that since the date of accident he has no income and all the expenses are increasing and further the complainant has requested the respondent to look into the matter once again to reconsider the things as the machinery is of no use at all, but the Divisional Manager as shown deaf ears and did not answer properly to the complainant. On 12-12-2017 the complainant has issued a legal notice to the respondent which was served, but the respondent till date not replied for the said notice. When the complainant asked the respondent to give the Surveyor report, he refused to give the same, later on the Surveyor report was given to the complainant under RTI.  Hence, the complainant has filed the above case for deficiency of service by the respondent.   Hence, this complaint.     

         3.  On service of notice by this Commission, the respondent has appeared through his counsel and has filed the written version in brief is as follows. 

All the allegations made in the complaint, except those of which are expressly admitted, are denied.   The contents in the complaint are not clear, which are in Zig Zag manner and also misrepresenting way and facts are suppressed and it seems the complaint is concocted for the purpose of wrongful gain from this respondent insurance company.  The contents of the complaint that the complainant is unemployed and in order to lead his livelihood he has put a manufacturing unit of Agarbathies etc., are contrary to the contents in the legal notice issued by the complainant, where it is mentioned that he is doing a Agarbathi business since 13 years, and he is also stockiest of Swasthic Masala Food Products, Bengaluru, and it clearly shows that, he was a business man and just for frame work of the complaint, contents are created suitable to makeup the complaint.  The complainant has purchased machinery from Safety Zone Technologies, Secunderabad on 04-06-2015 worth of Rs.12,90,937/- and the machinery was installed at Ballari and further he purchased some more machinery for sum of Rs.3,18,036/- and said purchased bills has been destroyed in Fire and for that reason, he produces Xerox bills, are all false and denied.   Once machinery is purchased from Safety Zone Technologies, Secunderabad, the installation job of machinery would be taken by the same technologies.  Installation work jointly by the two industries which are different places does not arise.  It is false version that original purchase invoices are destroyed but Xerox copies of the same are safe.  There is every chance of changing in original copy before making the Xerox copy.  Hence Xerox copies said to be true copy of purchase invoices gives room for suspicion, when there is a possibility of getting a duplicate copies from the same technologies.   The complainant has covered the insurance for his said plant and machineries and accessories and he had also insured entire stock in the factory are all false.  The Fire brigade report says that phone call has come from factory at 11-14 a.m., so it clearly shows that the complainant’s versions is not true and other allegation are concerned that complainant tried to put of the flames until the fire brigade came to the spot and some of the items were destroyed in the factory and all the machinery which are electrical items were become defunct/dysfunction are all false.   Some machinery were in dismantled position at the time of alleged Fire accident, stock of the materials in the finished and unfinished goods worth of Rs.7,64,951/- were destroyed due to fire is estimated of Rs.4,25,398/- etc., are all false.  The machinery parts which were effected in the Fire are taken into consideration by the Surveyor, those parts are compensated which are clearly mentioned by the final Surveyor in his Report, the complainant has played high drams and manipulated the documents. The insurance company has correctly assessed the loss and on the repair basis where there is a loss for small parts of the machinery and there was no total loss of the machinery whereas the complainant with a evil intentions simply took false estimation prices for the new machinery which models is different from installed machinery which are in existence and no one is estimated the machinery loss is Rs.14,25,398/- is simply concocted by the complainant. The respondent preliminary Surveyor P. Srinivasalu had gone to the spot and submitted his report and final surveyor has gone to the spot and he has also given his final report.  The technicians came from Kurnool who are well experience in this machinery were called for the checking/inspection of the machinery to assess the damages, especially incense making machinery and their recommendation have been considered by the final surveyor and the said technicians had submitted the inspection report to the complainant and they were paid by the complainant.  The Surveyor had checked every part of the machinery and he did not guess the loss and he has assessed the loss of the material stock has Rs.1,91,487/- as it was under insurance because material stock was Rs.20,85,854/- as per the balance sheet, and some insured for the stock is Rs.6,00,000/- and the surveyor has followed the correct procedure.  The Surveyor has assessed the loss of the machinery parts in each and every item and assessed the loss and accordingly machinery loss has arrived Rs.4,00,338/- and the complainant has never objected anything until received of the cheque amount from the insurance company, now afterthought he made a false allegation against the insurance company and the Surveyor with the evil intention of wrongful gain from the insurance company.   The policy is issued subject to terms and conditions and insured should not hide any fact and assist the insurance company in furnishing all information and insured shown negligence in preventing the loss of fire due to alleged short circuit.   He did not take care in preventing the loss.  Union Bank is the financer for the complainant’s Firm and they received the amount without any objection and there was agreed bank clause and all the receipt of the bank shall be complete discharge of the company, therefore it shall be binding all the parties insured in the policy.  Here complainant, as a matter of condition has no right to make a claim, as claim is settled as per the Surveyor assessment, the complainant has filed false complaint with concocted contents by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company.  The complainant does not come under the definition of Consumer and he is doing a business and his business is a commercial one which is profitable nature.  Once insured has received the amount in full and final settlement and signed by the voucher, he cannot be permitted to re-agitate the claim.   Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondent. Hence, the complaint has to be dismissed.

 4.    The complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence and that of one witness, which are marked as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19.  The respondent to prove his case, filed his affidavit evidence and that of Surveyor and Loss Assessor, which are marked as RW-1 and RW-2 and got marked 08 documents as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-08.  

  5.     The written arguments are filed by the complainant as well as by the respondent and heard the oral arguments on both sides.

              6.      The points that arise for our consideration are;

7     The findings on the above points are as under.  

 // R  E A S O N S //

POINT NO.1:-

7.   Considering the pleadings of the parties, it is revealed that, the complainant is seeking indemnification of loss caused to his stock plant and machinery of his business unit from the Opponent, by disagreeing the settlement of his claim, decided by the Opponent. On the other hand, the Opponent has taken defense that, the complainant is not a consumer and he has given discharge voucher agreeing for full and final satisfaction of his claim in favour of the Opponent and thereby the present complaint is not maintainable. The Opponent has taken further contention that, he denied the factum of the accident, bills and vouchers, & estimation and  other reports submitted by the complainant.

8.  In the light of the above said fact, the counsel for the complainant has argued that, the above said business unit was established by him, to earn his livelihood for maintaining his family by way of his self employment and as such he has taken training for establishment of above said unit from Directorate of Industries and started the unit under PMEGP Scheme by raising loan from Union Bank. He further submits that, except the above business the complainant has no other unit or business and therefore, the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of CP Act., and he is come under the Exclusion Clause of meaning of the “Consumer”. So, considering the said argument, the Opponent counsel has argued that, out of the above said unit the complainant is getting profit by selling the ultimate product, hence it is termed as business or commercial venture and thereby such commercial units run by the complainant are not for earning his livelihood. Hence, the Exclusion clause of the term “Consumer” is not made applicable to the complainant.

9.     In this regard, it is observed that, when the OP has taken contention that, the complainant is not a consumer, the onus to prove the same, is on the Opponent. Further, on perusal of the documents produced by the OP, there are no documents to show that, the complainant was having some other business establishment to earn the profit. So, in our view, running one or two units in the nature of commercial activities just by engaging some labours is not a commercial venture business. Because, running of commercial business in small and single unit cannot be termed as commercial in nature, but same is rather earning his livelihood by way of self employment. It is further observed that, the complainant has taken specific averment saying that, the said business unit was run by him, mainly for earning his livelihood. So considering the said aspect and as observed above, we are of the firm view that, the complainant is a “Consumer” within the meaning of the C.P. Act. Hence, the present complaint filed against the Opponent is maintainable.

10.   The another contention of the Opponent is that, when the complainant has submitted discharge voucher in favour of the Opponent and taken cheque from the Opponent on the basis of the said voucher, he cannot challenge the said settlement subsequent to receipt of cheque amount from the Opponent and therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.

11.   In the light of the above said arguments, we have perused the discharge voucher copy submitted by the parties, marked as Ex.P-16.  It is clearly evident and endorsed by the complainant that, the amount noted in the discharge voucher is received “under protest”. So, meaning thereby the complainant was disagreed with the settlement made by the Opponent for the loss caused to his stock, plant & machinery. Under these circumstances, the say of the Opponent that, the complainant fully agreed as full and final satisfaction of his claim is not holds good. Because keeping his other rights open the complainant has received the said amount “Under Protest” which cannot be termed as free consent of the complainant in the eye of law. So, therefore the complainant is at liberty to agitate the above said settlement, even after receiving the amount mentioned in the discharge voucher.

12.   Considering the above said pleadings of both the parties, it is not disputed by the parties that, the stock material of the complaint was estimated for Rs.1,91,487/- and the loss of plant and machinery was estimated for Rs.4,00338/-. But, being aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking other damage caused to his unit.

13.   The complainant has claimed that, his stock was insured for Rs.6,00,000/- and the plant and machinery was insured for Rs.15,61,000/- so he contended that, when the entire stock of material was burnt along with the plant and machinery, the claim settled by the Opponent is on lower side, contending that, he has kept stock, finished & unfinished goods worth Rs.7,64,951/-, which was totally destroyed in the said incident. Further, as per the estimation of the plant and machinery the loss caused to his said machinery unit is about Rs.14,25,398/-.  So, he drawn the attention of the Commission on the estimation report issued by CF Industries, Bangalore, and Safety Zone Technology, wherein the loss was estimated for the above said amount, which is marked as Ex.P-11.  He further, drawn the attention of the commission on the survey report issued by the Opponent which is marked as Ex.P-12 and contended that, the plant and machinery were partially burnt in the above said fire accident and remaining parts of the said machinery were damaged due to water entered into the electronic items when the fire brigadiers were trying to extinguish the fire caused to his unit. So, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that, the machinery affected by water become defunct and not in a usable condition and thereby the entire loss has to be assessed by the surveyor but same was not done by him at the instance of the Opponent and assessed the loss for meger amount.

14.    On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Opponent has contended that, when the surveyor has assessed the loss, who is an expert in this field his opinion is having more weight and his report is highly believable and cannot be ignored. Further, the final survey report was prepared as per the recommendation of the technicians of Kurnool, who checked and inspected the machinery to assess the loss after the above said incident. Since, the above said persons are technicians and qualified persons to assess the said loss. Accordingly, the loss of stock plant and machinery on the said assessment the machinery was estimated for Rs.5,91,825/- by considering each and every parts and its loss. So question of reconsidering the said settlement does not arise.

15.   By careful consideration of the above said final survey report and also the estimation report submitted by the complainant in support of his claim. It is clearly evident from the surveyor’s report that, many major parts of the industry unit have been damaged under the above said accident and some of the parts of plant and machinery were damaged due to entering of water, while fire brigadiers are trying to extinguish the fire. So, it means that, the said report is not considered the inner damaged parts of the said unit and also report is  silent regarding whether those affected parts are in usable condition or repairable condition or not. Therefore, in the absence of the said opinion of the surveyor the fulfillment of the entire loss of the unit was not covered as contended by the complainant. Because, the loss of indemnification should be covered on the entire loss caused to the plant and machinery, when the particular parts of become defunct or not in usable conditions. Hence, the replacement of such defunct parts are necessary to make the unit functionary. But, in this case, the  CF Industries have surveyed and assessed the loss caused to the complainant by estimating Rs.14,25,398/- governing all the circumstances of plant and machinery. But, the learned counsel for the Opponent has resisted the said submission of the complainant saying that, the alleged loss was assessed on the basis of new rates of the plant and machinery. Hence, the same cannot be considered to assess the actual loss caused to the plant and machinery.

16.    Considering the above said arguments of both the parties, and materials on records, admittedly the stock of the complainant both finished and unfinished goods was stored in the unit more than the insured value. Under these circumstances, the say of the Opponent that, the stock of the goods are covered by “Under Insurance” of the policy and claim of the complainant in respect of stock are to be assessed on the basis of average of his stock and its loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy is holds good and the assessment of loss of stock for Rs.1,91,487/- is seems to be correct on the basis of the policy clause.

17.    But, the loss assessed for the plant and machinery is not concluded properly by taking into all aspect of loss caused to the complainant and the report is silent regarding replacement of new parts which were damaged in the above said incident and it is also not considered the damage of the each inner part of the machinery, whether the same are replaceable or can be reused. In the absence of the same, we are of the view that, the complainant is entitled the loss of such parts and its full value. Because, the said unit was fully covered by insurance and the complainant is entitled the damage value of entire parts affected in the above incident as per the terms of insurance contract. Hence, by comparing the estimation reports of loss issued by CF Industries, Bangalore and the final survey report there is a lot of difference in assessing the loss caused to the plant and machinery. Hence, the same is payable by the Opponent to the complainant.

18.    The OP has taken has contention that, the final report was prepared and assessed the loss of unit on the basis of preliminary surveyor report issued by P.Srinivasalu and also the report of technicians came from Kurnool, who are well experienced person in such field and their recommendations are followed while assessing loss.  But, the OP has failed to submit the said reports in this case, which is giving scope for doughting on the final report in the absence of above reports.

19.  The specific allegation of the complainant is that, despite demanding the final survey report copy from the surveyor and from the OP the same was not supplied to the complainant. Hence, the learned counsel for the complainant claims that, the loss of the machinery was assessed by the surveyor behind the back of the complainant is holds good. Because, the complainant has obtained the above said final survey report from the Opponent by filing an application under RTI Act., and in view of the said application the Opponent was supplied the copy of the final survey report. So, it shows that, the complainant was unaware about the contents of final survey report and the assessment of loss made therein. Hence, the surveyor’s report was not made available to the complainant prior to the date of his application. Hence, the grievances of the complainant that, the surveyor has not considered the full damage caused to his unit is also sustainable as contended by the complainant.

20.    The plant and machinery was insured for a sum of Rs.15,61,000/- whereas the loss assessed by the Opponent as per the survey report was Rs.4,00,338/-, but, as per the report estimation issued by the CF Industries the loss of the machinery was estimated for Rs.14,25,398/-. So, even by considering the assessment made by both technicians above, and by comparing the said reports we noticed some of the parts shown in the estimation report issued by CF Industries was not considered by the final surveyor in his report. Hence, the report of the final surveyor for assessing the loss caused to the plant and machinery is seems to be on lower side for non considering of entire loss of unit including the part affected by water. So, the action taken by the Opponent only based on the final survey report is nothing but a deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent. Hence, the remaining claim of the complainant are payable by the Opponent to the complainant.  Since, the complainant is entitled the indemnification of the entire loss caused to his plant and machinery and the Opponent is liable to pay the same.

21.  Looking to any angle, and as discussed above, the complainant has proved the Point No-1, hence the same is answered by us, AFFIRMATIVELY.

POINT NO.2:-

22.    In view of our answer to the point No.1 in the affirmative, the claim of the complainant is maintainable against the OP.  The learned counsel for complainant  has argued that, the OP have taken to Survey report from the different experts which is not permitted under the law by alleging that, in order to under value the loss of machinery the OP has taken such reports conveniently and to avoid is liability in this case.  So, he relied upon the judgment dated 21^st February-2019 of Hon’ble National Commission passed in MKU Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance company ltd., in Consumer case No.132/2008  wherein it is held that, “the option to accept or not to accept the reports is with insurer, however, if the rejection of the report is arbitrary and based on no acceptable reasons, the court or other Forums can definitely step in and correct the error committed by insurer while repudiating the claim of the insured”.

23.  But in this case, the other reports held by the insurer are not produced for our consideration as contended by counsel for complainant.  The learned counsel for the OP has relied another judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in (2014) CJ - 366 (N.C.) between Sunanda Kishor Bhand Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it is held that, Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21 Insurance – Fire Insurance – Loss due to fire – payment under protest  report of Surveyor is crucial evidence - In order to scrub it strong reasons are required, though it cannot be laid down as a rule of thumb that report of Surveyor is to be accepted under all circumstances – Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value, unless is proved otherwise - Except ipse dixit of complainant, there is no material brought on record to support its claim- Case of complainant dismissed.  Therefore, by considering the principal laid down in the above said judgments, we have gone though the entire record produced by the parties in assessing the loss.  Admittedly, the OP has not produced the another recommendation or reports collected from other surveyor other than spot surveyor and also stated that, they have taken report from experts of Kurnool city, who are dealing with the same assessment but their reports are not produced in this case, though the final surveyor has assessed the loss of the plant and machinery based on their opinion.   Hence, even in the citation referred the counsel for OP also, the Hon’ble National Commission was held, though the final surveyor report has significant evidentiary value unless is proved otherwise.  Hence, in this case the complainant has produced other expert report issued by C.F. Industries who are also experts in such field in assessing the loss of the plant and machinery and they have issued their estimation opinion which is marked as Ex.P-11.  Whereas the final surveyor report issued by the final surveyor is also produced in this case which is marked as Ex.P-12.  Both above reports have been produced by OP also and same are also marked as Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 respectively.  So, by considering both reports there is a variations in assessing the loss of the plant and machinery.  In the final report    Ex.P-12 the Surveyor has clearly mentioned in page 2 of the report, regarding machinery except for paper cup machine, hand mixing machine, sewing machine and sealing machine which were badly burnt the other machinery especially the automatic incense making machine, PLC with auto feeders 8 number found unaffected by fire but effected by water used in the fire fighting such as electrical and electronics of the machinery.  So, by considering the said opinion of the final surveyor, the complainant is entitled the entire loss caused to the said parts, whether the same have been effected under fire accident or while extinguishing fire by water. But, on the perusal of the said report, value of the above said parts has not been considering in its full value.  So, in our view in absence of such descriptions’ the final surveyor report and his assessment on plant and machinery is not acceptable as compared to the another estimation report issued by C.F. Industries marked as Ex.P-11.  The C.F. Industries have issued loss of estimation of the machinery to the extent of Rs.10,47,000/- and accessories for Rs.1,25,400/-and the details of the loss of machinery have been mentioned under Annexure 1 of said report by quoting the respective rates of parts damaged.  So, by considering the same the details of the parts of damaged are clearly mentioned by C.F. Industries by machine wise, but the final Surveyor has considered only partial damage of the said parts and assess the loss on lower side.    Hence, by taking in to consideration of the said Ex.P-11 report, the complainant is entitled the assessment made by C.F. Industries to tune of Rs.10,47,000/- including depreciation of 10% on the said amount which comes to Rs.9,42,300/-.  In addition to this, salvage value of the said parts to extent of 5% is to be deducted i.e., Rs.52,350/-.  Therefore, the actual loss comes to Rs.9,42,300/- minus Rs.52,350/- which comes to Rs.8,89.950/- and the complainant is entitled the said amount from the OP, in respect of loss of plant and machinery value.  But, in this case the complainant has already received an amount of Rs.4,00,338/- from the OP towards loss of plant and machinery, hence, the said amount is to be deducted.   After deducting the amount of Rs.4,00,338/- out of Rs.8,89,950/- it  comes to Rs.4,89,612/- which is further payable by OP to the complainant on head of loss of plant and machinery.

24.  But, the loss of stock assessed by final surveyor considering the excess stock held by the complainant and the same has been assessed on average basis as per the policy terms and conditions, since the same is come under category of “under value of the Insurance”.  Hence, the conclusion arrived at Rs.1,91,487/- based on the books of account report produced by Op under Ex.R-4 the said assessment  is holds good and there is no reason for us interfering with the conclusion made by the final surveyor in respect of damage of stock and said amount has been already received by the complainant from OP.

25.  In addition to above claim, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.25,000/- towards his pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges from the OP.  Hence, in all the OP is liable to pay Rs.4,89,612/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.5,000/- total Rs.5,19,612/- to the complainant.  Which is just and proper to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, in above terms we answer the point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

       // ORDER //

                The complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C.P.Act-1986 against the OP is allowed partly with cost.

              Consequently the OP is liable to pay Rs.5,19,612/- to the complainant as stated above along with interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of complaint till its realization, within two months from the date of this order.

       Inform the parties accordingly.

Smt.Marla Shashikala                Sri.H. Veera Shekar         Sri. A.H. Malaghan

           Lady Member.                                    Member.                      President,

District Consumer Commission Ballari.      District Consumer Commission Ballari.      District Consumer Commission Ballari.