Complainant/petitioner - M/s Suraj Lal Chandra Sen - is a partnership firm and was carrying the business of Kirana and purchune at Bakshari. It had taken Shopkeeper’s Insurance Policy from the respondent insurance company covering the risk of Rs.4,25,000/- effective from 24.11.1990 to 23.11.1991. During the -2- currency of the policy, a theft was committed. FIR was lodged and finally the case was closed by the police. The complainant/petitioner submitted his claim to the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs.3,45,943.10/- which was not settled. Aggrieved by this, complainant/petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent insurance company to pay Rs.3,23,972/- to the complainant along-with simple interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 01.4.1991. Respondent insurance company being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been partly allowed. The State Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.3,23,972/- to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. Complainant/petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has erred in modifying the order passed by the District Forum; that the State Commission has reduced the loss amount by Guess Work -3- only; that there was evidence present on record to show that the actual loss to the petitioner was Rs.3,23,927/-. As against this, counsel for the respondent contends that the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.23,623.10ps. and the State Commission should have reduced the loss amount to Rs.23,623.10ps. Respondent has not filed any appeal. Since the respondent has accepted the order of the State Commission, the plea taken by the respondent that the loss amount should have been reduced to Rs.23,623l.10ps. as assessed by the Surveyor cannot be accepted. Relevant portion of the order of the State Commission reads as under: “Information about the strips of middle shutter being twisted to make the shutter free is there. Once the middle shutter is twisted to make the shutter free, with a view to have a free access, this will be nothing but a case of forceful entry. And this will obviously be covered by the term burglary which means an illegal entry into the building with an intent to commit crime as theft. Contrary argument of Sri Srivastava thus is of no substance. -4- As regards the second set of argument of Sri Srivastava is concerned, in this connection both have placed reliance on their respective surveyor’s report. Both have been critized that their versions are natural one. We too are of the opinion that while on one hand the loss assessed by the surveyor appointed by the complainant, which has been approved by the learned District Forum, is very much on the higher side, we are too of the view that when there is an insurance of Rs.4,25,000/- and the complainant carries on a partnership firm carrying the business of Kirana and purchune, and submits sales tax and income tax returns. It is hardly conceivable that the burglary as assessed for a sum of Rs.23,623.10 will be an acceptable sum. No documents of the trade transactions of the firm for the earlier years have been filed. The opening balance of the stock in hand as on 1.4.1991 as per the financial record by the learned District Forum, which has been accepted by the parties is Rs.1,28,230/-. No reasons have been assigned that there was spurt any business for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.7.1991. Obviously thus in the absence of other materials adjudging the spurt of business and also taking view of the normal business into consideration, it is not accepted that the complainant -5- would have purchased for four months materials worth Rs.10,95,989.35 and would have sold goods worth Rs.7,70,144.70. Obviously in the absence of reliable evidence only guess work is the appropriate way to assess the loss of the goods. We assess the loss of goods worth Rs.1,50,000/- which would have been taken away by the unknown culprits. Thus the loss assessed, adjudged and found to be paid by the appellant is Rs.1,50,000/-. The argument of rate of interest in our view is also acceptable. The burglary pertains to a period of 1991 and appropriate rate of interest awarded should have been 6% and not 12%.” We find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has reduced the loss amount to Rs.1,50,000/- purely on Guess Work. There is evidence on record on the basis of which the actual loss suffered by the petitioner would be assessed. Although, this is a fit case for remand, but keeping in view that the incident is of the year 1991 and the parties have been in litigation for the last almost 20 years, we restrain ourselves from remitting the case back to the State Commission. Counsel for the parties left it to the Commission to assess the loss on an approximate basis. To settle the long pending dispute, in the interest of justice, by applying the Rule of Thumb, we increase the loss amount to Rs.2 Lacs. It is agreed between the parties that the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest has already been paid to the complainant/petitioner. Respondent insurance company is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint within eight weeks from today. We have passed this order to settle the long pending dispute between the parties. This may not be taken as a precedent for future reference. Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. | 
