R.K.bawri, member- Aggrieved by the order dated 2.11.1996 passed by the District Forum, West Garo Hills, Tura (Meghalaya) in Complaint Petition No.3 of 1994, the Appellant who was the Complainant before the Forum has filed the instant Appeal.

 

2. The brief history of the case is that Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwalla the Appellant/Complainant insured his building situated at Mankachar, part of which was used as godown and part as residence, which for the sake of brevity we shall hereinafter refer to as the “godown”, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- vide Insurance cover note No..130203/11/11/00628/90 dated 30^th March, 1990 issued by the Tura branch of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd(hereinafter “Insurance Co.”). The Complainant’s godown was completely gutted in a fire on 20^th April, 1990 whereupon he lodged his claim on 23.4.90 for compensation with the Insurance Company. The Surveyor who was appointed by the Insurance Company on 7.5.90 visited the spot and submitted his fire survey report assessing the loss at Rs.160006.48, less Salvage value rs.5000/- i.e. net loss of Rs.155006.48. The survey report stated that no breach of warranties were found at the time of survey. However in a note contained in the report it was mentioned that – “The Policy indicated that the godown was empty. But at the time of survey, it was found to be filled with raw cotton. The insurer is requested to take note of the fact before finalization of the claim.”

 

3. Thereafter vide letter dated 5.3.91 issued by the Insurance Co.’s Divisional Office at Guwahati the Complainant’s claim was repudiated contending that it was not admissible under the conditions of the policy and that this decision was based on the survey report. There upon the Complainant entered into correspondence with the Insurance Co. to impress upon them the necessity of adducing tangible, cogent and legally valid reasons for their repudiation of the Complainant’s claim whereupon he received a letter dated 16.04.91 which stated as follows:

 

“The claim arising under Policy No.130203/11/11/00628:90 was repudiated on the ground that there was a non-disclosure of material fact which rendered the contract voidable as per condition No.1 of the Policy. In this context, please take note of the fact that in answer to question No.5(c) of the proposal form you have stated the godown to be empty. However, from the survey report for the claim it is clear that at the time of outbreak of fire the godown was full of raw cotton. Under the circumstances, the company is well within its rights to repudiate the claim.”

 

4. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Title Suit in a Civil Court at Tura for the redressal of his grievance. Subsequently, when the District Forum, West Garo Hills, became functional the complainant filed a complaint with the Forum on July 21,1994 and withdrew his suit from the Civil Court. The Complaint’s petition was heard at length by the District Forum after evidence was taken. Before the Forum the complainant alleged dereliction of duty, negligence and arbitrariness of the Insurance Co. in the rejection of his claim for compensation of loss of Rs.331667.00 incurred on account of fire.

 

5. On the contrary, the Insurance company while admitting the fact of fire and consequent loss contended that the claim of the complainant was untenable on the ground of suppression of facts and violation of the conditions agreed upon in the contract/policy between the insured and the insurer in as much as at the time of insurance the complainant had declared the godown to be empty while at the time of the fire incident it was found to be full of raw cotton, a highly inflammable material which was chiefly responsible for the magnitude of the damage and for which the premium was higher.

 

6. The District Forum having minutely studied the relevant documents and statements of witnesses and having heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both the parties, came to the finding that neither the quantum of compensation nor the quality of service rendered was datable and that had the godown been empty when gutted, the complainant would certainly have qualified for a reasonable compensation. At the same time it held that if the insured wished to gain coverage for a godown stored with raw cotton leading to greater risk, he had to pay a higher premium and that if the insured wished to gain coverage for a godown stored within raw cotton leading to greater risk, he had to pay a higher premium and that, logically, the insured could not qualify himself for compensation for a greater risk at a lower premium as that charged for a empty godown. However, the Forum having found that the fact of storage of raw cotton in the godown at the time of fire being incontrovertible and the nexus between the magnitude of damage and storage of raw cotton being also unquestionable observed that the defect and deficiency in the service rendered by the Insurance Co. was not clearly established and disposed of the complaint with the following order on 2.11.96:

 

“The Complainant may therefore, seek an appropriate Redressal in the Civil Court. The District Consumer Forum makes no observations on the merits of the case. The Complainant is accordingly disposed of without any award of compensation and costs thereof”.

 

7. Aggrieved by the forum’s order dated 2.11.96 the Complainant/Appellant is before us. Having heard learned Counsel for both sides and having perused the case records as well as the memo of appeal we find that the cruxes of the matter which call for our decision are as follows:

 

(a)    Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, after having taken evidence in the Complaint and examining witnesses and hearing the matter at length, the District Forum was justified in refusing to dispose of the matter on merits and in relegating the Complainant to a Civil Court?

 

(b)   Whether the subsequent storing of raw cotton in the insured godown which was empty at the time of Insurance disentitled the Complainant to his claim on the basis of the documents on record?

 

8. As regards the first issue, the Appellant’s counsel submits that the District Forum ought to have decided the Complaint on merits. On the other hand, while impressing upon us the need to uphold the order passed by the District Forum, the learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has urged that the matter should indeed go to the Civil Court for proper adjudication as it involves complex and complicated questions of fact. She relied upon the judgments reported in ІІІ (1992) CPJ 71 (Pragati and others –vs- bank of India and another) which was rendered by the Madhya Pradesh State Commission and also upon І (1992) CPJ 36 (NC). (M/s Rajdeep Leasing and Finance and others –vs- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others).

 

While we find that the facts and circumstances surrounding the above-cited cases were quite different from the case at hand and as such do not help support the plea of the Appellant, yet even without their aid we too are of the view and it is well settled that, where a matter does involve complex and complicated questions of facts and law and where a great deal of evidence both oral and documentary would be required, the proper remedy to be resorted to by the Complainant is to approach the Civil Court.

 

9. However, the argument that complicated and disputed questions of fact are to be adjudicated upon only by Civil Courts applies only in exceptional cases involving exceptionally complicated facts and legal issues when the Redressal Forums may decline to adjudicate upon disputes brought before them and to refer the Complainant to the remedy by way of suit. Perhaps we would not be wrong in saying that not a single case which comes before the Consumer Forum or for that matter before any Court, Tribunal or Commission is totally uncomplicated and free from factual dispute. If the Consumer Redressal Agencies were to shy away from entering such normal complexities and complications, the very purpose of their establishments would be defeated as it needs to be remembered that one of the objectives of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide a cheap and speedy remedy to aggrieved consumers by way of an alternative to the time consuming and expensive process of civil litigation.

 

10. section 13(4) of the Act specifically invests the Redressal Forums with the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil procedure in respect of the summoning of enforcing attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, the Discovery and production of documents and other materials producible as evidence, the reception of evidence on affidavits, the issuing of Commissions for the examinations of any witness etc. The statute thus clearly contemplates that the Redressal Forums constituted under it are also to decide cases filed before them after taking such oral and documentary evidence as the circumstances of any given case may require, as in the case of Civil Courts. Therefore, unless a Redressal Forum constituted under the Act finds after a careful scrutiny of the pleadings and the documents etc. relied on by the parties that a satisfactory adjudication of the matter cannot be conducted by it in proceeding under the Act because of the exceptionally complicated nature of the factual and legal issues involved, it will not be just or proper to decline to adjudicate upon a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumer. If jurisdiction is declined by the special Redressal Forum set up under the Act on the mere statement of a party that the case involves too complicated and disputed questions of fact or law or if they carry this principle too far and at the slightest whiff of complication, factual or legal, pack off the complainant to the Civil Court, it would amount to unjust denial of the benefits of the Act to the aggrieved consumer by erroneous abdication of its jurisdiction by the Redressal Agencies.

 

11. The Honorable Supreme Court has held in Skypack Carriers Ltd. –vs- Tata Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 5 SCC 294] at Para 5 that “There is no provision in law and we consider it an unhealthy practice for Courts/Commission/tribunal to abdicate their duties and functions and to delegate adjudications of disputes before them to third parties.” Although the facts of that case were different and the Commission therein had not relegated the Complainant to the Civil Court but had referred the matter to third person for consensual adjudication de hors the Arbitration Act, the observation that it is an unhealthy practice for Commissions/Tribunals to abdicate their duties and functions is of universal application and Redressal Agencies must do nothing that would amount to abdication of their duties and functions.

 

12. Here we may also recall the decision of the National Commission reported in ІІ (1991) CPJ 202 (S.K.Abdul Sukur –vs- State of Orissa & Others) where it was held (at para 5) that –

 

“The question whether or not there was negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties in relation to the performance of a particular item of service is not by itself too complicated to be determined by the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act on a consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence.”

 

Besides, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India A.P. –vs- Shri. Bhavanam Srinivas Reddy [ІІ (1991) CPJ 189] the National Commission held (at Para 4) that in case of unilateral repudiation by an Insurance Co. on the allegation of suppression of relevant material by the insurer at the time of taking the Policy the Consumer Forum has a duty to investigate into the question whether the charge made by the Insurance Company is well founded in fact and if the charge is not substantiated the matter will be further decided on merits.

 

13. We are also of the opinion that if a Consumer Forum needs to relegate a Complainant to the Civil Court, it must do so at the earliest upon a careful scrutiny of the pleadings and documents. It would not be fair or proper to decline to give a decision on merits after taking the parties through the entire gamut of adducing evidence and hearing arguments. A situation similar to the one before us also arose in a case between Amar jwala paper Mills (India) & Anr. –Vs- State bank of India which is reported in AIR 1999 SC 3494 where too the Apex Court held that in cases where oral and documentary evidence is already led before a Consumer forum it must itself hear and decide a Complaint instead of relegating the Complainant to a Civil Suit.

 

14. As far as the present case is concerned we find that the Complaint was filed on 21.7.94 and was disposed of by the District Forum on 2.11.96 i.e. after more than two years during which period issues were framed, evidence was adduced by both parties and several witnesses were examined and cross-examined and the matter was heard at length. The Forum minutely studied the relevant documents and statements of the witnesses, applied its mind to the arguments of both parties and even came to certain findings which we have referred to above. As such we cannot conceive as to what it is that the Civil Court could do in deciding the matter which the Forum could not do, inasmuch as from the records we find that it is not a case where highly complicated facts are involved but is a rather simple case which hinges on a decision on the second issue (b) stated in Para 7 above, which we shall shortly discuss. It also needs to be borne in mind that, as earlier mentioned, the complainant had initially filed a Civil Suit which he withdrew when the District forum became functional and in its stead filed the complaint before the Forum. Thus to send the Complainant back to the Civil Court for the second time where he would have to overcome the bar of limitation and again have to adduce the same evidence which has already been adduced before the Forum and to engage counsel to represent him would not only expose him to hardships but also accuse him more financial strain and further delay a decision in the matter, perhaps by several years.

 

15. In the above view of the matter we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the Forum relegating the Complainant to the Civil Court for Redressal of his grievances was not justified under the circumstances of the case and the Forum ought to have decided the Complaint on merits by itself on the basis of the evidence before it. In the same breath and applying the same yardstick to ourselves we also do not think it would be proper on our part to remand the case to the District Forum for Disposal as it is already long – delayed and, in any case, all the evidence is before us and the matter has been argued and heard at length. We therefore propose to finally dispose of the matter ourselves.

 

16. Coming to the merits of the Appeal, according to learned Counsel for the Appellant the Insurance Co. ‘s justification of repudiation rested on the alleged breach of the contract of storage of raw cotton and having so asserted, the burden of proof lay upon the Insurance Co. to prove breach of policy conditions which they failed to do. She also contended that since the Godown was let out by the Appellant as an empty godown and not as one containing raw cotton repudiation of the claim was neither legal nor fair to the insured.

 

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. urged before us that the Appellant while insuring the godown in question had categorically mentioned in the proposal form that the godown was empty and no where had he mentioned that the Godown would be rented out for storing any goods, more so a highly inflammable material like raw cotton. Had the same been mentioned/disclosed in the proposal Form then the premium charged to cover the risk would have been higher than the premium that was charged for an empty godown as the risk involved in an empty godown was much less than that in a godown used for storing cotton, which is a highly inflammable material. Learned Counsel further states that if there was any alteration in the risk factor during the currency of the Policy, the Appellant was obliged and duty-bound to inform the Insurer/Respondent and the Respondent could then have either accepted the risk by charging the required amount of premium leviable for such increased risk or could have refused to cover risk any further and would have refunded the premium for the balance period of the Policy. But the Appellant suppressed this fact and did not inform the Respondent about the increase in the risk by change in the user of the empty godown to that for storing highly inflammable material like raw cotton. As the fire occurred for a risk which was not covered under the Policy, no claim was payable and the claim was therefore justify repudiated.

 

18. Now, to recapitulate, the Insurance Co. first repudiated the claim on 5.3.91 on the ground that it was not admissible under the conditions of the policy and this conclusion was said to be based on a careful study of the Survey report. This letter is indeed very vague and gives no clue as to which specific conditions of the policy it was under which the claim was not payable according to the Insurance Co.

 

Turning to the Survey Report it is seen that it confirmed the occurrence of the fire and the loss was assessed at Rs.155006.48. The report also stated that there was no breach of warranties of the policy but, at the same time, pointed out that though the Policy indicated that the godown was empty it was found at the time of Survey that it was filled with raw cotton.

 

The second letter No.DO.ІІ:FIRE:CL:0057:91 dated 16.4.91, from the Insurance Co. is more specific and the reason for repudiating the claim has been quoted extensively by us at Para 3 above, the sum and substance of which is that there was non disclosure of material fact by the Complainant which rendered the contract voidable as per condition No.1 of the Policy.

 

19. Since the entire defence of the Insurance Co. hinged on the alleged violation of condition No.1 of the Policy by the Appellant, it is obvious that we needed to peruse the Policy, to know what the condition specifically stated and to decide upon its ramifications. Having shifted through the entire records we were surprised to find that the related policy of Insurance was neither filed by the Insurance Co. before the District Forum nor not was it filed before this Commission. However to render complete justice between the parties and for just determination of the real points in controversy and since the repudiation of the claim rested on the purported violation of condition No.1 of the Policy, as could be seen from the Insurers letter dated 16.4.91, this Commission during the course of hearing of the Appeal directed the parties to produce the related Insurance Policy. However the parties failed to produce the Policy despite several opportunities having been given to them.

 

20. It is well settled that it is primarily the duty of the Insurance Co. to produce the Insurance Policy but they failed to produce it either before the District Forum or before this Commission, not only on their own but even despite the directions of this Commission. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. –Vs- Jugal Kishore & ors. (AIR 1988 SC 719, Para 10) the Apex Court emphasized the duty of the party which is in possession of a document to produce it before the tribunal and observed that where an Insurance Co. wishes to take a defence as regards its liability based on the terms of an Insurance Policy it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence.

 

In the case before us the Insurance Co. has denied its liability to pay the claim on the basis of violation of policy condition No.1 but has failed to file a copy of the insurance policy despite even being directed to do so by this Commission. Under these circumstances we have no option but to draw an adverse inference against the insurance Co. and hold that the policy, if produced, would have gone against the Insurance Co.

 

21. Further, in the absence of the policy, neither are we able to know the content of Condition No.1 thereof, the violation of which condition the Insurance Co. has cited as the reasons for repudiating the claim, nor can we be led to conclude that there was indeed a violation of the condition by the Appellant on the basis of the evidence available before us , nor can we decide on the implications of such violation, if any. The failure of the Insurance Co. to produce the related policy leads us to conclude that other than the Cover Note dated 30.3.90 issued by the Insurance Co., no formal Policy of Insurance was infact issued by the Insurance Co. to the Appellant and as such no conditions for the Insurance Cover were either communicated to the Appellant nor were binding upon him as we are of the view that the terms and conditions governing an insurance cover must be communicated to the Insured and unless communicated, ordinarily, it can neither bind the Insured nor can the Insurance Co. rely on any such condition, if there be one at all, to repudiate a claim and is bound to satisfy the claim on the basis of the loss assessed by the Surveyor. If any Insurer be given the liberty of not issuing the Policy containing the Conditions and warranties and delivering a copy thereof to the insured then in the event of the claim the possibility of an over-zealous employee of the company preparing a Policy containing Conditions of their choice so as to avoid their liability could not always be ruled out and this would surely be an unfair trade practice.

 

22. The Honorable Supreme Court held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. –vs- M.K.J. Corporation [ІІІ (1996) CPJ 8 (SC) ] at Para 5 that:

 

“It is a fundamental principle of Insurance Law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties. Good faith forbids either [party from concealing (non-disclosure) what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact and his believing the contrary. Just as the Insured has a duty to disclose similarly, it is the duty of the Insurers and their agents to disclose all materials facts within their knowledge, since obligation of good faith applies to them equally with the assured”.

 

In the instant case, since the Insurance Co. did not even issue and serve a copy of the Insurance Policy containing its terms and conditions upon the Complainant throughout the period of the Policy it failed to disclose the material facts relating to the conditions of the policy to the Complainant. The Complainant was therefore in no positions to know the conditions of the policy and even if it contained a condition that he was required to inform the Insurance Co. whenever any goods were stored in the godown (which was empty at the time of insurance) he was ignorant of that fact and could not be expected to comply with the condition. The Insurance Co. cannot try to take advantage of the Complainant’s ignorance and its own fault by not issuing the policy and concealing what it privately knew as regards its terms and conditions and drawing the complainant into a bargain without disclosing all materials facts.

 

23. Further it is well settled rule of evidence that the burden of proof on an issue lies upon the party who asserts and not upon the party who denies. The proceedings before the Consumer Forum are no exception to this rule. Prior to its amendment w.e.f. 15.3.2003, Section 13(2) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 provided as follows:

 

“The District Forum shall, if the complaint received by it under section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (1) cannot be followed or, if the complaint relates to any services:-

 

(a)    refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;

 

(b)   where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute,-

 

(i)                  on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or

 

(ii)                on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the Complainant where the opposite party omits and fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum”.

 

It is thus clear that wherever the Opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the Complaint, all disputes before the Forum are to be settled on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by Complainant and the Opposite Party.

 

24. In the instant case too if the Insurance Co. wanted to deny its liability on the ground of violation of the conditions of the Policy of Insurance, it was imperative that it brought the policy on record as evidence. Only then we could have taken notice of the terms of the Policy while deciding the case. We cannot go by the mere statement of the Insurance Co. that there was a violation of the Policy condition by the Complainant when the Policy Document is not even before us and we have had no opportunity of seeing for ourselves as to what are the conditions contained therein and whether they truly disentitle the Complainant to his claim.

 

25. In Shandia Insurance Co. Ltd. –Vs- Kokilaben Chandranandan & Ors. (AIR 1897 SC 1184) the Honorable Supreme Court held (at para 14) that –

 

“It must be established by the Insurance Company that the breach was on the part of the Insured and that it was the insured who was guilty of violating the promise or infringement of the contract. Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured and successfully contend that he is exonerated having regard of the fact that the promisor (the insured) committed a breach of his promise”.

 

It was also held that the violation or infringement on the part of the promisor must be willful.

 

26. With regard to the burden of proof, the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Narchinva V. kamat & another etc. –vs- Alfredo Antonio Doe martins & others (AIR 1985 SC 1281) needs to be referred to. That too was a case of repudiation of a Insurance claim on the ground of breach of Policy conditions. Although the breached conditions related to the driving of a vehicle without possession of a valid licence, the ratio of the judgment would apply to the case before us. At paras 14 & 15 of the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court held inter alia :-

 

“…. The burden to prove that there was breach of the contract of Insurance was squarely placed on the shoulders of the Insurance Company. The second Appellant was under no obligation to furnish evidence so as to enable the Insurance Company to wriggle out its liability under the contract of Insurance……. The Insurance Company could have got the evidence produce to substantiate his allegation. Applying the test who would fail if no evidence is led, the obvious answer is the insurance company. To sum up the insurance company failed to prove that there was a breach of the term of the contract of insurance as evidence by the policy of insurance …. Once the Insurance Company failed to prove that aspect, its liability under the contract of the insurance remains intact and unhampered and it was bound to satisfy the award under the comprehensive policy of insurance”.

 

27. In view of the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court and in the facts and circumstances of the present case we therefore have no hesitation in holding that in the instant case too, the burden of proof to prove that there was a breach of the term of the contract of insurance lay upon the Respondents and they failed to discharge this burden. The Insurance Company thus having failed to prove this aspect its liability under the contract of insurance remains intact and unhampered. Repudiation of the claim by the Respondent on this ground is bound to be set aside and the Insurance Company is bound to satisfy the Complainant’s claim under the contract of insurance as evidenced by the Cover Note. As stated earlier the Insurance Co. had adequate opportunity of adducing evidence both before the learned Forum and this Commission to substantiate its contention but they failed/neglected to do so and for their failure to discharge this burden of proof the complainant/Appellant ought not to be allowed to suffer.

 

28. Even otherwise, as regards the contention of the Insurance Co. that whereas in answer to question No. 5(c) in the proposal form (Question : If used for shops and god owns, state nature of goods stored) the complainant had stated that the godown was empty, but that at the time of outbreak of the fire the godown was full of raw cotton, the records reveal that in fact the answer given by the complainant to question No.(c) was “godown – empty at the time of Insurance” make the reply the conditional one and it is not the case of the Insurance Co. that the godown was not empty “ at the time of insurance”.

 

The insertion of the words “at the time of insurance” itself clearly reveals the intention of the complainant that the godown would not necessarily remain empty for all time to come. The Insurance Co. calculated and accepted the premium on the insured godown taking into account this answer given by the complainant in the Proposal Form and issued the Cover Note dated 30.3.90 which simply describes the premises as “Godown” and not as empty godown and also gives no indication as to whether the premium charged was for an empty or full godown. The Insurance Co. has also failed to show us that there does exist at all any separate ate of premium for insuring an empty godown and if so to what extent it differs from the rate chargeable for a godown in which raw cotton is stored. In any event, the complainant having stated in the proposal form that the godown was empty “at the time of insurance”, which fact is not denied by the Insurance co., the complainant cannot be held to be guilty of non-disclosure of any material fact and the repudiation of his claim on this ground cannot in any case be sustained.

 

29. In the light of the above discussion and observation we find that the Insurance Co. failed to discharge the burden of proving that other than a cover note any policy of Insurance containing any conditions/warranties was issued and communicated to the appellant and that there was any willful breach of the conditions of insurance by the complainant/appellant and as such repudiation of the insurance claim by the respondent is unsustainable. We further find that the Insurance Co. has failed to substantiate by any documentary evidence that there was non disclosure of any material fact by the complainant rendering the contract of insurance voidable, as alleged by them, to justify repudiation of the Complainant’s claim on this ground.

 

This further leads us to the conclusion that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company by not settling the complainant’s claim.

 

We must also bear in mind that whereas the complainant lodged his claim with the Insurance Co. on 23.4.90, it was repudiated only on 5.3.91, i.e. after almost a year and such long delay in repudiation itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Co.

 

Of course, since it is not really disputed that the insured godown contained raw cotton when the fire occurred, the Insurance Co. is surely entitled to charge premium for the insurance cover at the rate applicable to a godown of a declared construction containing raw cotton and to collect the differential premium, if any.

 

We therefore set aside the impugned order dated 2.11.96 passed by the district forum, Tura and allow the appeal and direct the respondent Insurance Co. to pay to the Complainant a sum of rs.155006.48 ( being the loss assessed by the Surveyor) after deducting therefrom the differential premium, if any applicable to the risk of insuring a godown containing raw cotton for the relevant year and further to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the payable amount to be calculated from 23.10.90 i.e. 69six) months from the date of lodgment of the claim till the date of payment. We further direct that the total awarded amount including interest, will bear further interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of payment. No costs.

 

The Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The registry shall return the related case records to the District Forum, Tura along with a copy of this order.