This appeal arises out of judgement and order rendered by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as he State Commission in complaint case no. 08/2004. The appellant is the original complainant. He is aggrieved due to the dismissal of the complaint vide the impugned judgement. 2. The appellant had filed complaint before the State Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated, his case is that for period between 31.05.2001 to 30.05.2002 he had insured stock and goods stored at different godowns and premises. A consolidated insurance cover note was issued in his favour vide number 311902 after payment of Rs.86,625/- on 27.05.2001. He had stored 448 bags of niseedin the cold storage godown called lpha Cold Storage On 23.05.2002 incident of fire occurred at Alpha Cold Storage, Jharotwada. In that incident of fire, 448 bags of Aniseed were gutted. Thus, he sustained loss of Rs.11,02,080/- due to the said incident of fire. The appellant alleged that due claim was submitted to the respondents (insurers) as well as to Alpha Cold Storage. However, the claim was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that Alpha Cold Storage was not included as the place insured in the insurance policy and, therefore, there was no legal liability to indemnify him. The appellant, therefore, claimed amount of Rs.22,40,080/- alongwith interest @18% p.a., inclusive of the compensation for actual loss, mental agony, expenses, etc. 3. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 (insurers) resisted the complaint by their joint written statement. They submitted that the appellant had issued letter dated 18.05.2002 for inclusion of Alpha Cold Storage under the policy. They contended that as on the date of incident of fire the Alpha Cold Storage was not included under the contract of insurance. They submitted, therefore, that the claim was validly repudiated. It appears that the original opposite party no. 5, i.e., Alpha Cold Storage neither filed any written statement nor it resisted the claim put forth by the appellant (complainant). It further appears that during pendancy of the complaint proceedings, an amount of Rs.7,62,261/- was reimbursed to the appellant on 07.06.2005 by M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. and amount of Rs.1,36,861/- was paid by the original opposite party no. 5, i.e., Alpha Cold Storage. Thus, total amount of Rs.8,99,122/- was already paid to the appellant. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 (insurers) had appointed a surveyor and loss assessors. The surveyor, namely, M/s. Ritz Surveyors & Adjusters (Pvt.) Ltd. gave assessment report on 24.01.2003. As per the surveyor report, the total loss was of Rs.10,95,360/-. The surveyor came to the conclusion that there were 448 bags of niseed(sauf) in the Alpha Cold Storage premises which gutted in the fire. The surveyor recommended that such amount of Rs.10,56,880/- may be paid after considering the other policies on stock deposits in the cold storage. The surveyor, however, suggested that the insurers may verify the aspect regarding the monetary notice issued by the appellant (complainant) and contribution of the liability of others. 4. The State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that as on the date of issuance of the insurance policy, the premises of Alpha Cold Storage was not included in the Fire Insurance Policy issued in favour of the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the relevant documents which are placed on record. 6. There is no dispute about the payments received by the appellant from M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Alpha Cold Storage. Thus, out of assessed amount of Rs.10,56,880/-, the appellant was already paid amount of Rs.8,99,122/- and, therefore, the only disputed claim was in respect of Rs.1,57,758/- (Rupees one lakh fifty seven thousand seven hundred fifty eight only). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that floater cum declaration policy was in respect of the stocks at various places inclusive of the Alpha Cold Storage. He points out that insurance cover note (Annex. P-2) was issued by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 on 31.05.2001. He submits that in the list of godowns, the premises of Alpha Cold Storage had been included. He further invited our attention to the report of the authorised surveyor which shows that Alpha Cold Storage is a named cold storage in the list attached with the cover note. He, therefore, would submit that the repudiation of the claim was not justified. The counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 (insurers), however, submitted that the appellant attempted to change the place of storage from Anaz Mandi, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur to Alpha Cold Storge, Jhotwada Industrial Area, Jaipur, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. He, therefore, submits that there was no justification for the claim put forth by the complainant and it was rightly repudiated. 7. Perusal of the surveyor report submitted by M/s. Ritz Surveyors & Adjusters (Pvt.) Ltd., goes to show that the surveyor verified the list attached with the insurance cover note. The surveyor also checked the stock register of the insured and found that the insured had stocked the quantities of the aniseed bags which were in the Alpha Cold Storage as on the date of the loss caused due to fire. The surveyor found that the appellant had stored the commodities of different stock at various cold storages listed in the policy. There were in all seven (7) places including Alpha Cold Storage where the stocks had been stored. The appellant deals in wholesale business of kirana goods. 8. It appears from the record that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 gave reply to the demand notice of the appellant on 16.06.2003. Copy of the reply notice of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 would make it manifestly clear that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 did not dispute the fact that on 23.05.2002 the incident of fire had occurred as stated in the legal notice issued by the appellant. It is also not denied that the surveyor was appointed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4. The only ground for rejection of the claim as was stated in the reply notice is shown below:- he real fact is that earlier at the time of issuing the policy your client has mentioned the place of storage in proposal form Anaz Mandi, Jaipur. Whereas at the time of incident he has changed the place of storage from Anaz Mandi, Chand pole Bazar, Jaipur to Alfa Cold Storage, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur, without informing my client which is straight way violation of terms and conditions of the policy, hence my client, The New India Assurance co. Ltd., has rightly repudiated the claim of your client by their letter, by due application of their mind, under good faith and explaining all the reasons, which shows no deficiency on the part of my client. 9. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that though the parties had adduced evidence by filing affidavits yet none of them had filed the original insurance policy issued in favour of the appellant. The report of the surveyor duly appointed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 cannot be lightly brushed aside. It was not the case of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 that the surveyors had given any false report about inclusion of lpha Cold Storagein the list attached with the insurance cover note. We have noticed from recitals from the insurance cover note (Annex. P-2) that the stock of all type of seed grains, kirana goods etc. stored in various godowns, buildings situated at various locations under JDA limits as per the list enclosed with the cover note was under the insurance cover. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 were in possession of original cover note and the list. They were in possession of the insurance policy issued by them and the list of places covered by the terms of the insurance contract. They did not produce those relevant documents before the State Commission. The State Commission ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondent nos. 1 to 4, particularly, in view of the fact that the authorised surveyor categorically mentioned in the surveyor report that Alpha Cold Storage is a named cold storage in the list attached with the cover note. The observation of the surveyor was made on basis of the documents which were furnished for his perusal. As stated before, the said survey report was not challenged by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 at any point of time. The affidavit of Mr. B.C. Sethi (Annex P-15) purports to show that the letter dated 15.05.2002 was issued by the appellant for inclusion of Alpha Cold Storage, Jaipur in the policy, yet before it was approved, the intimation of incident of fire was given on 23.05.2002. The affidavit of Mr. B.C. Sethi does not show that the list appended with the insurance cover note did not include Alpha Cold Storage. His affidavit does not show that such observation made by the surveyor in the survey report was erroneous and inconsistent with the fact situation. Apart from the fact that Alpha Cold Storage was named in the list attached with the insurance cover note, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the insurance policy obtained by the appellant was floater-cum-declaration policy. The general rules and regulations issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee go to show that floater policy can be issued for stocks at various locations under one sum insured. It is explicit that the list of godowns was attached with the insurance cover note. The intimation about the incident of fire was given to respondent nos. 1 to 4 on 23.05.2002. Though, the appellant issued letter dated 15.05.2002 for inclusion of the stock in the policy by addition of lpha Cold Storage It appears that such addition was mistakenly sought by the appellant, perhaps without verification of the earlier list attached with the insurance cover note. However, that could not be the reason for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to repudiate the claim, particularly, when the list was verified by the authorised surveyor and it was found that Alpha Cold Storage is a named cold storage in the list attached with the cover note. In view of nited India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corporation[(1996) 6 SCC 428], it will have to be said that the insurer has duty to act in good faith. It is a fundamental principle of the Insurance Law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties. 10. Considering the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that repudiation of the claim of the appellant was unjustified. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,57,758/- to the appellant. The complaint ought to have been allowed to the extent of said amount alongwith appropriate interest. In nited India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corporation(supra) it has been held that the insurers were liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount payable when there was undue delay in making the payment. It follows, therefore, that the appellant is entitled to claim remaining amount of Rs.1,57,758/- from respondent nos. 1 to 4 alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the entire payment is made. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The complaint is partly allowed. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are directed to pay amount of Rs.1,57,758/- to the appellant alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of repudiation, i.e., 03.07.2003 till the payment of the entire amount. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 shall also pay amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant towards cost of the litigation. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 shall pay the entire amount, mentioned above, within period of six weeks or otherwise, the due amount will carry further penal interest of 15% p.a. from the date it becomes due till realisation of the same. The statutory amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellant alongwith the accruals.