Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission.

          Appellant is the owner of the firm, which deals in wholesale grocery business in Dharwad.  He used to store all types of food grains in his godown in Nehru Market, Dharwad.  The stock kept in the godown was insured with the respondent insurance company.  On 25.4.2001 at about 2.30 A.M., there was a fire accident due to short circuit, as a result of which, goods stored in the godown got damaged.  Appellant filed an insurance claim.  Surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs.5,22,727/- but the respondent insurance company offered to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,92,045/- by deducting 25% on the ground of benefit of doubt on the cause of the fire.  Complainant/appellant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission.

          State Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,23,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till realization.  Rs.10,000/- were awarded by way of damages for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs.  It was held that there was no justifiable reason for the insurance company to deduct 25% out of the total loss assessed by the surveyor. 

Complainant, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal claiming Rs.15 lakh.  According to the counsel for the appellant, the State Commission has erred in not allowing the entire claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs.15 lakh.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The only evidence to arrive at the extent of loss caused is the report of the surveyor.  The surveyor, after going through the material produced by the appellant and taking into consideration the volume to weight, weight to volume - weight of all the different commodities affected and, applying the average rate, assessed the loss as under :

COMMODITY                      WEIGHT       AV. RATE(Rs.)            VALUE(Rs.)

1.         Rice                                        22750 kg.           920                         2,09,300

2.         Moong                                        450 Kg.        2200                              9,900

3.         Lobha (Alasandi)                      900 Kg.        2200                            19,800

4.         Husk                                         2000 Kg.          113                              2,260

5.            Mixture of various                24321 Kg.          990                         2,39,887

commodities with 20%.45 & 65% factors :

14724+6807+2100 Kg.

TOTAL                                                                                              4,75,207

Add 10% towards fire damages                                                    47,520

TOTAL                                                                                              5,22,727

          Counsel for the appellant contends that the claim made by the appellant before the Sales Tax Authorities and the Income Tax Authorities was accepted.  That in view of the same, the loss assessed by the surveyor could not be accepted.  Admittedly, the appellant has not put on record the Assessment Order, either of the Sales Tax Authorities or of the Income Tax Authorities to substantiate the submission made before us.  On being confronted with this, the counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellant be permitted to lead additional evidence at this stage.  He also prayed that the case be remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh trial after permitting the parties to lead additional evidence.

          We have given due weight to the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.  Admittedly, the appellant has not produced any expert evidence to counter the basis on which the surveyor had assessed the total loss at Rs.5,22,727/-.  The complaint was filed in the year 2002 and the State Commission disposed of the same on 1.7.2005.  We are now in the year 2009.  At this stage, on an oral submission made by the counsel for the appellant, appellant cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence.  No acceptable ground has been made out by the appellant to persuade us to permit the appellant to lead additional evidence.  The material, which the appellant seeks to produce, was admittedly in possession of the appellant even before the decision was rendered by the State Commission.  Appellant cannot be permitted to fill in the lacunae at this stage, especially when the consumer fora are expected to dispose of the cases within a stipulated time frame. 

          In the absence of any evidence to persuade us to differ with the report submitted by the surveyor assessing the loss at Rs.5,22,727/-, it is not possible for us to discard the report of the surveyor, which is an important document as per Section 64UM of the Insurance Act.  Dismissed.