Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

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  unfolded story   of the complainant   is that  the complainant has got a Poultry farm which was insured with the OP for sum assured of Rs.64,22,000.00 covering the period from 09.03.2006  to 08.03.2007. It is alleged by the complainant that on 03.06.2006 there was cyclone by virtue of which the poultry firm   and other materials were damaged. Thereafter  the claim was made for Rs.28,00,000/-. The OP did not settle   the matter on the plea that the said poultry firm was not insured under the policy. Challenging said repudiation and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

 4.      The OP  filed written version stating that after due insurance of the said cages and electrical fittings they have issued policy  covering the period as stated by the complainant. They admitted to have deputed the  1^st surveyor who visited the spot and found that the  shed cages and electrical fittings are not insured. However, 2^nd surveyor was deputed who had  made survey and found that the shed cages which are constructed but  those are not damaged.  He made computation  of loss at Rs.19,32,851/-. Since, the damages are not covered under the policy, they have no deficiency in service  on their part. 

5.              After going through  necessary pleadings of the parties, the only question emerged in this case, whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service and if so what is quantum of compensation payable. The complainant, in order to prove his case has filed the evidence affidavit and other documents. The OP also in order to defend the case of the complainant has also filed evidence affidavit and surveyor’s report vide Annexure-E.

6.               From the documents  of the parties  and the evidence, it is found that there is a policy which  was purchased by the complainant from the OP on payment of  due premium. The necessary policy is in the nature of fire and special perils one. The policy is clear to show that it has covered the shed No.1 cages and shed no.2 cages and electrical fittings. The evidence affidavit of the complainant shows that   due to  cyclone  one shed  of  712 sqft.x 35 sft.  was damaged. Annexures -3 shows that he has informed the insurer. Anneuxre-4 shows that the OP has issued letter asking  for   some documents for  more  information. Annexure-5 shows that the complainant has submitted all documents. Annexure-7 shows that shed no.1,2,3 & 4 are to be constructed. Annexure- e   shows that shed no.3 was damaged and shed no.1 & 2 are not damaged and as such shed no.3 is  not covered under the policy. Annexure-9 shows that they found that only the shed under construction has damaged but shed no.1 & 2 are not damaged.

7.       In view of above submission, complainant’s  statement  and the annexures it appears  that the sheds has been damaged ,now   the question arises  if  complainant has got shed no.3 how  insurance policy contains shed no.1 & 2. OP No.2 has adduced the evidence affidavit. The statement of OP No.1 depends on the surveyor’s report. The 1^st surveyor’s report  is Annexure-C being prepared by  Surveyor Mr.A.K.Mishra who has only found there are two cages. Here the report does not find any  3^rd cage. His report does not disclose about construction of 3^rd cage although he visited the spot. However, the OPs also produced the 2^nd surveyor’s report vide Annexure-3 where the surveyor has  showed that shed no.1 was completely collapsed. The surveyor observed at page-3 that there are two complete shed and one shed was completely  collapsed and he has also described  same in their evidence affidavit. After going through same, we are of the view that the shed has already  described in the evidence with regard to damage of the said cage of said shed. The question of 3^rd cage does not arise  there in the particular report of the surveyor.

8.                In view of aforesaid discussion,  learned counsel for the OP submitted that there is discussion at para-10,page-15. Learned District Forum observed  that the damage shed is not covered. After scanning   the entire surveyor’s report, we are of the view that  there is damage to the 1^st shed and loss already computed by the surveyor and such shed is already covered by the policy. Since, the OP-Insurer has avoided  to pay compensation inspite of damaged shed covered by the policy, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP for repudiating the claim.

9.           In view of aforesaid analysis, it is settled in law  that the surveyor’s report is taken into consideration for settlement of the claim. The  complainant has claimed Rs.28,00,000/- but the documents are not very much convincing. However, it is settled in  law that the surveyor’s report is the basis for computation of loss. He has computed loss of Rs.19,32,851/-. The OP is liable to pay this amount to the complainant as compensation.

10.       In view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed in part. The OP are directed to pay Rs.19,32,851/- towards compensation to the complainant  within a period of 45 days from the date of order, failing which  it will carry 12 % interest from the date of repudiation  till  payment made. We also award litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-  to be payable by the OP to the complainant within the stipulated period.

                 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.   

                   DFR be sent back forthwith.