—Order— Shri Umedilal Agarwal, partner, Mangla Textiles, Bazaza Bazar, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the insured has filed this complaint under Sec. 12(a) and s. 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act (No. LXVIII of 1986) (which will, for the sake of brevity, be hereinafter referred to as the Act) against opposite parties no. 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as the insurer) claiming a sum of Rs. 9,98,600/- as compensation. The details of the compensation have been mentioned in para 6 of the complaint. It may be mentioned that amongst others a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs has been claimed as insurance amount; Rs„ 78000/- have been claimed as interest on the insurance amount for a period of 13 months, and Rs. 2,600/- as rent of the room in which salvage was stored for 13 months alias Rs. 200/- per month. The complaint is dated October 12, 1988. The insured has a shop (insured premises) situate in Bazaza Bazar, Alwar. It obtained Traders Combined Policy DR/85 No. 42805/140100/57/1/1577 dated 28-1-86 in lieu of Cover Note No. 698765 dated 22-12-86. We are concerned in this case with Section 1 of the policy, which is as under :- "Section 1. Contents.—(excluding money and valuables) : on stock of All Type cloth are covered. (i) Furniture, fixtures and fittings. (ii) Stock in trade comprising of" According to this, a stock of all types of cloths was insured to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The period of insurance was 22-10-86 to 21-10-87. The complainant has alleged that there was fire in the shop on account of electric short-circuit, by which the cloths lying in the shop were destroyed. According to it, the cloths that were lying in the shop were of Rs. 4,58,718.55. The insured (complainant) lodged the claim in accordance with Condition no. 5 (b) of the Policy in time, i.e., within fourteen days and approached the insurer for payment of the insured amount but it was not paid. After correspondence, a notice through Advocate dated 21.9.88 was served upon the insurer, but neither any reply was given nor settlement of the claim was made. Ultimately, the com-plainant has filed this complaint as stated above. Along with the complaint, the insured has filed many documents. The relevant documents will be referred to hereinafter when necessary. 2. The name of opposite-party no. Ultimately, the com-plainant has filed this complaint as stated above. Along with the complaint, the insured has filed many documents. The relevant documents will be referred to hereinafter when necessary. 2. The name of opposite-party no. 5 was ordered to be deleted on the application of opposite party no. 5 vide order dated 3-1-89. A detailed reply dated December 30, 1988 has been filed by the Advocate of the insurer on January 2, 1989 contesting the claim on various grounds. Preliminary objections no. 1 to 6 were raised. They pertain to the maintainability of the complaint. They are as under :— (1) that the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 framed under the Act were published in the Gazette of July 23, 1987 and, thereafter they came into force. The State Commission was established on May 26, 1988. The fire was caused in the shop (insured premises) on Sept. 16, 1987 which is the date of cause of action and so, it is of prior date from the date of the establishment of the Commission and for this reason, the complaint is, prima facie, liable to be dismissed, for, it cannot be maintained under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder; (2) that opposite party no. 5 has been unnecessarily impleaded in the complaint as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and him. The complaint, therefore, suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties; (3) that no specific cause of action has been mentioned in the complaint against the opposite parties, which may bring the same within the fourcorners of the Act; (4) that no permission for filing the complaint was granted by the State Commission in respect of opposite-party no. 5. Opposite party no. 5 did not consent to it. In the alternative, the State Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction and cannot hear the complaint and on this ground, the complaint should be dismissed; (5) that the claim of the complainant is under consideration of the insurer and, therefore, the complaint is pre-mature and in the absence of cause of action, its cognizance should not be taken; (6) that the State Commission has neither jurisdiction to decide the complaint nor can it pass any order or give direction and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. 3. 3. On merits, the allegations made in the complaint were denied in toto, the reasons were given by the insurer for not deciding the claim within reasonable time. The insurer denied that the fire was caused on account of the electric short-circuit. The valuation of the cloths, which are said to have been destroyed, was also denied. As many as 54 documents were submitted by the insurer. It may be mentioned that during the course of arguments, Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for the insurer referred to the documents mentioned at items no. 4, 17, 46, 53. and 54 in the list of documents filed by him. In support of the complaint,the complainant (insured) has filed affidavits of P. N. Tiwari dated Jan. 2, 1989, Vishan Swaroop dated Jan. 2, 1989, Ramkishan dated Jan. 2, 1989 and Ramchandra dated Jan. 2, 1989. The deponents of the affidavits were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the insurer. The statements of C. W. 1 Inderlal, C.W. 2 Daulat Ram, C.W. 3 Sugan Chand and C.W. 4 Umedi-lal Agarwal (partner, Mangal Textiles) were also recorded by the Commission. In rebuttal, the insurer examined C.P.W. 1 Vinod Kumar Verma. 4. The insured produced the photo stat copy of the policy containing terms and conditions on 16.1.89. On 17-1-89, the insured also produced a statement showing comparative position of survey reports of the various surveyors which were obtained by the Insurer in connection with the claim of the insured as there was fire in the shop which destroyed the cloths lying in it. A copy of comparative position of survey reports was delivered to the learned counsel for the insurer. 5. We heard Mr. Sanwat Mal Mathur for the complainant and Mr. Vinod Tyagi for opposite parties no. 1 to 4. We have considered the record. 6. In the first instance, Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 4 invited our attention to the preliminary points raised in the reply. We think it proper to dispose them of first. 7. Sanwat Mal Mathur for the complainant and Mr. Vinod Tyagi for opposite parties no. 1 to 4. We have considered the record. 6. In the first instance, Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 4 invited our attention to the preliminary points raised in the reply. We think it proper to dispose them of first. 7. The first preliminary objection is that the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 (the Rules hereinafter) framed under the Act were published in the Gazette on July 23, 1987, and, thereafter, they came into force and as the fire was caused in the shop on September 16, 1987, which is the date of cause of action and the State Commission was established after the coming into force of the Rules, the complaint is not maintainable. The Act was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated December 26, 1986, as it received the assent of the President on December 24, 1986. . Thereafter, by notification, it was made applicable to Rajasthan on July 1,1987. The policy which was issued by the Insurer to the insured was from 22-10-86 to 21-10-87. The Notification, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 9(b) of the Act was issued on May 26, 1988 for the establishment of the State Commission. The complaint under sec. 12 (a) read with s. 17(a)(i) of the Act filed before the Commission is dated October 12, 1988. The objection is that the cause of action arose on 16-9-87, i.e. prior to the establishment of the State Commission. The State Commission was not existing at the time of the accrual of the cause of action and the provisions of the Act could not be availed of for filing the complaint. This preliminary objection is to be rejected simply on the ground that the complaint was filed under the Act and the Rules made under the Act. It is not the case of the complainant that the complaint is barred by time. The complaint could only be filed after the establishment of the Commission and that has been done. The Act had come into force prior to the accrual of the cause of action and the complaint could be filed under the Act provided the conditions laid down therein were fulfilled. This preliminary objection is, thus, over-ruled. 8. The complaint could only be filed after the establishment of the Commission and that has been done. The Act had come into force prior to the accrual of the cause of action and the complaint could be filed under the Act provided the conditions laid down therein were fulfilled. This preliminary objection is, thus, over-ruled. 8. The second preliminary objection is that there is no privity of contract between the insured and opposite-party no. 5 and, so, there is misjoinder of parties. It may be mentioned that on 3-1-89, Mr. S. M. Mathur, Advocate for the complainant stated that he does not want to oppose the application filed by Mr. Vinod Tyagi for deleting the name of opposite party no. 5. An order was passed on 3-1-89 that in view of the concession made by Mr. S. M. Mathur, learned counsel for the complainant, the application for deleting the name of opposite-party no. 5 is allowed and the learned counsel for the complainant was directed to make necessary correction in the complaint under his signatures and to put the date below them. This preliminary objection; thus, need not be examined on merits. 9. It will be convenient to deal with preliminary objections no. 3 and 6 together. Preliminary objection no. 3 is to the effect that no specific cause of action has been mentioned in the complaint against the opposite parties which may bring the same within the four-corners of the Act. Preliminary objection No. 6 is with respect to the jurisdiction of the State Commission to decide the complaint and to give directions in the matter. A perusal of the complaint shows that the insured obtained the policy from the insurer, inter-alia, with respect to the cloths in stock lying in the shop. The sum insured was Rs. 4 lakhs. As stated above, the policy was to remain in force from Oct. 22, 1986 to Oct. 21, 1987. The insurer agreed that subject to the terms and conditions contained in the policy or otherwise expressed therein if the insured shall sustain loss or damage to property or incur liability during the period of insurance, the insurer shall pay to the insured forthwith at the time of happening of such loss of property so lost or amount of such damage or amount of liability incurred. In Sec. 1 of the policy regarding contents, amongst others, it is mentioned that the insurer will indemnify the insured in respect of the loss of or damage to the contents whilst contained inside the premises by—(i) fire,lighting, explosion of gas and domestic appliances. We are not concerned with the other clauses mentioned in Sec. 1 for contents. The fire was caused, as alleged by the insured, by the electric short-circuit, thereby destroying the cloths lying in the shop. Here, it will be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Consumer has been defined in sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. The relevant portion of the definition of consumer for the present purpose, is as under :— (ii) hire the services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or any assumed or deferred payment and includes availing of such services other than of the persons who hires the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or promised or any assumed or deferred payment and such services are availed of with the previous approval of the first mentioned person. Service has been defined in s. 2(1)(o) of the Act. The material part of this section is as under : — "Service" means service of any description which is made available to its users and includes the provisions of facilities in connection with Bank, Financing, Insurance—but does not include rendering of any services free of charge or under a contract of personal service." Deficiency has been defined in s. 2(l)(g) which reads as under : "(g), deficiency means any fault, imperfection, short-coming, inadequacy in the quality, nature and the manner of performance, which is required to be maintained by any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by the person in pursuance of the contract or otherwise in relation to any service." According to sec. 2(l)(b), the consumer can be a complainant under sec. 12. A complaint in relation to any service provided, may be filed by a consumer to whom such service is provided. The insured got the contents of the„shop insured with the insurer. The insurer undertook to indemnify the insured in respect of the loss of or damages to the contents (cloths) contained in the shop (insured premises) by fire. 12. A complaint in relation to any service provided, may be filed by a consumer to whom such service is provided. The insured got the contents of the„shop insured with the insurer. The insurer undertook to indemnify the insured in respect of the loss of or damages to the contents (cloths) contained in the shop (insured premises) by fire. The insurer undertook, in pursuance of the contract contained in the policy, to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the insured in case of loss of or damage to the cloths lying in the shop. The fire was caused by electric short-circuit on Sept. 16, 1987 and the cloths lying therein were destroyed. The insured asked the insurer to indemnify the loss or damage to the cloths lying in the shop (insured premises), but the insurer failed to indemnify the insured to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/- and, thus, it committed default and failed to perform the service in pursuance of the contract and that necessitated the insured to file this complaint. In these circumstances, the cause of action arose to the insured on Sept. 16, 1987 when there was fire in the shop on account of electric short-circuit. The insured had paid premium of Rs. 1753/- to the insurer. Thus there was consideration for hiring the services of the insurer. The insured is consumer within the meaning of sec. 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act and so is a complainant under sec. 2(1)(b). There was deficiency in the services which the insurer undertook to perform in pursuance of the contract. When there was deficiency in the services, the complaint under sec. 12(a) read with s. 17(a)(i) of the Act has been rightly lodged before the State Commission and the State Commission had jurisdiction to decide the complaint and give appropriate directions as envisaged by the Act. The cause of action had accrued to the insured on Sept.16, 1987 and, therefore, it could file the complaint, which has been entertained and tried. The State Commission has, therefore, jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders or give necessary directions. Preliminary objections no. 3 and 6 are, therefore, repelled. 10. So far as preliminary objection no. 4 is concerned, the question of granting permission by the State Commission in regard to opposite party no. 5 does not arise. Sec. 11 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. Preliminary objections no. 3 and 6 are, therefore, repelled. 10. So far as preliminary objection no. 4 is concerned, the question of granting permission by the State Commission in regard to opposite party no. 5 does not arise. Sec. 11 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 11 deals with pecuniary jurisdiction. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 11 deals with territorial jurisdiction, which is in pari materia with sec. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. Sec. 18 of the Act lays down that the procedure specified in Ss. 12, 13 and 14 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder for the disposal of the complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, will be applicable for the disposal of the disputes by the State Commission. The cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission. Opposite-parties no. 1 to 3 are also within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. So far as opposite party no. 4 is concerned, it is the Chairman of United India Insurance Limited and its registered office is at Madras. There is common reply of opposite-parties no. 1 to 4. The amount of compensation claimed in the complaint is Rs. 9,98,600/-. The State Commission has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint. Preliminary objection no. 4, therefore, cannot be upheld and is rejected. 11. The only preliminary objection now remains is that the complaint is pre mature as the claim of the complainant is under consideration of the insurer and in the absence of the cause of action, no cognizance should be taken of the complaint. It has already been held by us that the complainant has a cause of action. The loss and damage to the contents were caused by fire on Sept. 16, 1987. Information of fire was given immediately and claim was filed within time (fourteen days) in accordance with General Condition no. 5(b) of the policy. Besides the other correspondence, a notice was issued to the insurer on 21-9-88 and, thereafter, the complaint was filed. From 16-9-87 upto the date of filing of the complaint, the settlement of the claim was not done and no final decision was taken with respect to the payment to the insured by the insurer. 5(b) of the policy. Besides the other correspondence, a notice was issued to the insurer on 21-9-88 and, thereafter, the complaint was filed. From 16-9-87 upto the date of filing of the complaint, the settlement of the claim was not done and no final decision was taken with respect to the payment to the insured by the insurer. The allegation of the complainant is that as insurer has failed to settle the claim, it necessitated filing of the complaint. In these circumstances, the complaint cannot be said to be premature. Preliminary objection no. 5 is also over-ruled. Having disposed of the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the insurer, we proceed to examine the complaint on merits. No controversy was raised before us that insurance was not in respect of the stock lying in the shop. No objection was taken in regard to condition no. 10 under the head General Conditions of the Policy. 12. The first question that arises is as to the cause of fire in the insured premises (shop). The case of the complainant (insured) is that on account of electric short-circuit, there was fire in the shop on Sept. 16, 1987 at 6.30 A.M., and that destroyed the cloths lying in it whereby causing loss to the insured. The insurer has denied that the fire in the shop was caused by electric short circuit. The information regarding fire was given on the same day to the insurer. M/s V.N. Sarin & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Insurance Surveyors were appointed to make the survey report. They visited Alwar on 17.9.87 and carried out the spot inspection. After making necessary inquiries, the report Ex. OP/3 dated 17.10.87 was submitted. As regards cause of fire it was stated therein that the fire had resulted from electric short-circuit. It has been mentioned that "from the nature of damage to the stock, it appeared that because of lack of oxygen within a closed space, the fire gradually spread ingulfing the entire stock." This report has been filed by the insurer. Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for the insurer has invited our attention to the survey reports Ex. OP/4 (letter dated November 12, 1987 and report dated November 24, 1987) and Ex. OP/50 dated 3-10-88 made by Shri S. K. Pandey and Ex. OP/85 dated December 18, 1988 of Shri V.K. Verma (O.P.W. 1). Ex. Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for the insurer has invited our attention to the survey reports Ex. OP/4 (letter dated November 12, 1987 and report dated November 24, 1987) and Ex. OP/50 dated 3-10-88 made by Shri S. K. Pandey and Ex. OP/85 dated December 18, 1988 of Shri V.K. Verma (O.P.W. 1). Ex. OP/85 is dated December 18, 1988 and it is about fifteen months after the fire in the shop and also after the complaint as it is dated October 12, 1988. The complaint was ordered to be put up before the State Commission when its sittings are held by the Registrar on October 14, 1988. Shri S. K. Pandey has mentioned in his report under the head cause of fire that "the insured has produced photo copy of the logbook of the fire tender which is silent regarding cause of fire", and fire brigade officer was not produced by the insured. In Ex. OP/85 (report of Shri V. K. Verma) as regards cause of fire, it is stated that "VNS has attributed the cause of fire as electric short circuit whereas according to report of Shri S. K. Pandey dt. 24-11-87 page 4—Fire Brigade Log Book is silent on the issue. Shri Umedilal (C.W. 4) has deposed in his statement dated January 4, 1989 that the cause of fire was electric short-circuit. There are other reports on record but they are silent as to the cause of fire. The statement of Shri V. K. Verma (O.P.W.1) does not throw any light regarding cause of fire. Relying on the report Ex. OP/3 dated 17-10-87 of M/s V, N. Sarin & Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed by the insurer and the statement of Shri Umedilal (CW 4) and other relevant circumstances brought on record, we hold that the fire in the shop (insured premises) was due to electric short circuit. 13. Next question that crops up for consideration is regarding the extent of loss of or damage to the contents (cloths) contained in the shop (insured premises) by fire on September 16, 1987 caused by electric short circuit. The insured has averred in the complaint that at the time of fire there was cloth worth Rs. 4,58,718.55 in the shop according to the report of the chartered account. The report is dated Sept. 21,1987. It is in respect of the period 1-4-87 to 14-9-87. The closing stock is of Rs. The insured has averred in the complaint that at the time of fire there was cloth worth Rs. 4,58,718.55 in the shop according to the report of the chartered account. The report is dated Sept. 21,1987. It is in respect of the period 1-4-87 to 14-9-87. The closing stock is of Rs. 4,58,718.38. There were no transactions on 15.9.87 as it was a weekly-holiday for the shop vide statement of Umedilal (C.W. 4) (Director M/s V. N. Sarin & Co. Pvt. Ltd.). The insurer has denied the averments of loss made in the complaint but it has not challenged the audit report of the insured. The complainant has examined Inderlal (C.W. 1) and Daulat Ram (C.W. 2). Vishanswaroop in his affidavit dated 2.1.89 has stated that the cloth that was destroyed by fire was of about Rs. 5 lakhs. Ramakishan in his affidavit has deposed that the Surveyor Shri P. S. Lahiri came after fire in his presence and told that the cloth destroyed was about 42.5 lakhs. There two deponents of the affidavits have not been cross-examined by the insurer. The report Ex. OP/3 of M/s. V. N. Sarin & Co. Pvt. Ltd. signed by P. S. Lahiri shows that "the insured books of accounts were found uptodate and almost intact although some of the financial records came within the lap of fire" and that "Insured books of accounts were duly audited by M/s Sushil Kumar Jain and Associates Chartered Accountants, Alwar and the insured submitted their returns regularly in time. In the report Ex. O.P./3 it has been stated as under:— "On the basis of the Trading account, the value of stock available with the Insured at the time of loss was Rs. 4,58,719.00 Less 2.5 % deduction made by us to reduce the value of shop soiled stock after negotiation with the insured Rs. 11,467.97 Value considered for assessment purposes available at the time of loss Rs. 4,47.251.03 Sum insured available at the time of loss Rs. 4,00,000.00 Therefore extent of under-Insurance 10.57% According to this report, loss works out as under : Value of stock available with the Insured at the time of loss for assessment purposes Rs. 4,47,251.03 Less estimated value of salvage Rs. 15,000.00 Less 10.57% on account of under insurance Rs. 45,688.93 Rs. 3,86,562.10 Assessed loss due to occurrence say Rs. 3,86,562.10." The Insureds acceptance was also obtained. M/s. J.N. Sharma & Co. 4,47,251.03 Less estimated value of salvage Rs. 15,000.00 Less 10.57% on account of under insurance Rs. 45,688.93 Rs. 3,86,562.10 Assessed loss due to occurrence say Rs. 3,86,562.10." The Insureds acceptance was also obtained. M/s. J.N. Sharma & Co. in its report Ex. O.P./6 dated 17.12.87 has without disturbing the calculation of the earlier surveyors adjusted the envisaged reduction of stock by adjustment of 10% G.P. at the last step of calculation and arrived at Rs. 3,67,000. The insured made representation to the insurer in this regard. Shri V. K. Verma (OPW. l) has proved his report (Ex. O.P./85) dated 18.2.88. He has dealt with the valuation of loss given by the previous surveyors. He has done volumetric calculations in his report and summed up that "full capacity of accommo-dation Rs. 2,51,200.00= Rs. 2,50,000.00 Approx. Capacity at 50% operation— Rs. 1,25,000.00 Approx." We have considered the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is correct that according to S. 64 UM(2) Proviso of the Insurance Act the insurer has been empowered to pay or settle any claim at any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss of assessor. It is also well settled that in fire insurance the proofs may consist of books of account, vouchers, invoices whether original or copies or of plans specification and estimate and the assured may be required to supplement the information therein. The report Ex. O. P./85 of Shri V. K. Verma is not a survey report as such. It is merely an investigation report. The report Ex. Q..P./3 is nearer to survey report. M/s V. N. Sarin & Co. Pvt. Ltd. had examined the Insureds books of accounts and other financial record along with supporting documents as is. clear from Ex. O. P. 3 dated 17-10-87. It is not necessary to examine in detail the report Ex. O. P. 4 dated 12.11.87 and Ex. O. P./15 dated 3-10-88 of S. K. Pandey for there are charging allegations against him and he was not examined to refute them. J. N. Sharma & Co. whose report is Ex. O. P. /6 are chartered accountants and they were appointed to determine value of loss and salvage suffered by the insured. They did not disturb the calculations made by earlier surveyors but adjusted the envisaged reduction of stock by adjustment of 1 % G. P. at the last step of calculation. J. N. Sharma & Co. whose report is Ex. O. P. /6 are chartered accountants and they were appointed to determine value of loss and salvage suffered by the insured. They did not disturb the calculations made by earlier surveyors but adjusted the envisaged reduction of stock by adjustment of 1 % G. P. at the last step of calculation. The insurer also appointed M/s J.N. Sharma & Co. Chartered Accountants. Shri Narendra Choudhary and K. Avtar Gupta for the assessment of loss. None of them has been produced as a witness and their affidavits have not been filed for the reasons best known to the insurer. Learned counsel for the parties invited our attention to condition no. 9 under the head "General conditions". It is as under:— "9. Average :—If the property hereby insured shall at the time of any loss or damage be collectively of greater value than the sum insured thereon then the insured shall be considered as being his own insurer for the difference and shall bear a rateable proportion of any loss or damage accordingly. Every item, if more than one, of the policy shall be separately subject to the conditions." They sought to put different interpretations. According to us the measure of indemnity payable under the policy is actual loss sustained subject to the maximum limit of the amount upon which the premium has been paid. To illustrate if the value of the property insured is Rs. 10,000/- and be insured for Rs. 1000/-and a loss occurred which did not exceed one tenth of the whole value of the property, the assured will be entitled to recover the insurance money in its entirety viz. Rs. 1000- because it is upon that sum that the assured has been paid the premium. But if the loss be greater than the sum assured, he is not entitled to recover more for the reason that he did not pay any premium thereon. In such a case the insured will be considered to be his own insurer for the difference which should be reteable proportion of the loss. 14. Having considered the material on record, produced by the parties we are of opinion that the loss assessed due to fire caused by electric short circuit by M/s V. N. Sarin & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vide report Ex. O. P. 3 at Rs. 3,86,562.10 is correct. 14. Having considered the material on record, produced by the parties we are of opinion that the loss assessed due to fire caused by electric short circuit by M/s V. N. Sarin & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vide report Ex. O. P. 3 at Rs. 3,86,562.10 is correct. It may be mentioned that in this case, we have tested the evidence placed before us on the basis of probabilities. It is undoubtedly law that in such proceedings, finding as to the valuation of loss can and may be rested on the preponderance of the probabilities of the case. The insured has not committed any breach of conditions of the policy. It is not the case of the insurer that reasonable care was not taken by the insured. The insurer in its letter dated 26-10-87 has written to the insured to keep the salvage intact (safe) under custody as it is the property of the insured. The insured in the reply dated 4.11.87 has stated that salvage is the property of the insurer and the insured does not want to take it. There is no satisfactory evidence regarding fraudulent intention of the insured. Under the policy, the insurer agreed to indemnify the insured in respect of loss of or damage to the contents which were in the insured premises (shop of the insured situate in Bazaza Bazar, Alwar). The insurer despite undertaking failed to indemnify the insured in regard to loss caused by fire. Thus, the service of the insurer suffered from the deficiency was envisaged by s. 2(l)(g) of the Act. The insured has a right to be indemnified for the loss suffered by it which in this case is Rs. 3,86,562.10. 15. The insured has also claimed Rs. 1,65,000/-, Rs. 2600/-, Rs. 3000/-and Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of loss of business, rent of room where salvage was kept, stationery postage and travelling expenses and loss of reputation for not making payment in time respectively, from the insurer as detailed in para 6 of the complaint. Under the terms of the policy, the above amounts are not recoverable from the insurer for the insurer agreed to indemnify the insured in respect of loss or damage to the stock of all type of cloth (See Section 1 of the policy). Apart from that there is no cogent and convincing proof on record in this regard. The insured has claimed Rs. Apart from that there is no cogent and convincing proof on record in this regard. The insured has claimed Rs. 78,000/- as interest on the insured amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- at the rate of 18% for 13 months. Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for the opposite-parties argued that there is no term or condition in the policy for the payment of interest and as such insurer should not be saddled with liability to pay any interest. Mr. S. M. Mathur, learned counsel for the complainant, on the basis of A.I.R. 1961 A. P. 142 (Para 60) argued that interest should be awarded as compensation. For the meaning of the words interest and compensation reliance was placed on A. I. R. 1963 Pun. 411 (Paras 7,8 and 9). It is true that there is no stipulation to pay interest in the policy. 16.The term compensation signifies that which is given in recompense, as equivalent rendered damages on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjusted to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained, the value estimated in money of something lost or withheld. The term compensation is used to indicate that constitutes or is regarded as equivalent or recompense for loss or privation. Under s. 14(l)(d) read with s. 18 of the Act, the State Commission is empowered to direct the opposite-party to pay such amount as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite-party. There was fire on account of elec tric short-circuit on Sept. l6, 1987. The information was conveyed to the insurer immediately. Survey and Assessment Report Ex. O. P./3 dated October 17,1987 was sent to the insurer by its surveyor. Report Ex. O. P./6 dated Dec. 17,1987 was made by M/s. J. N. Sharma & Co., Chartered Accountants as directed by the insurer.. The insurer has alleged that the claim of the insured could not be settled for the reasons stated in para 5 of the reply. We have carefully considered the reasons given by the insurer and the relevant letter Ex. O. P./l produced by the insurer in support of the reasons for not settling the claim of the insured. This letter is undated and it seems to have been received on December 9,1988. The date of the post office seal is Dec. 8,1988. We have carefully considered the reasons given by the insurer and the relevant letter Ex. O. P./l produced by the insurer in support of the reasons for not settling the claim of the insured. This letter is undated and it seems to have been received on December 9,1988. The date of the post office seal is Dec. 8,1988. It is about sixteen months after the fire in the shop. This letter was sent to Shri V. K. Verma (O.W. 1) for investigation also. About this letter Shri V. K. Varma has stated in the report Ex. O. P./85 that "though the signatures are not of the parties concerned, but the matter has gravity in it." He has also written in the report that "one thing is common and which of course cannot be obtained in writing is that nobody spoke well about the insured. In a letter written by Asstt. Manager mention was made that after the receipt of the report, the file will be sent for part payment of the Head Office, Madras because the matter is beyond financial powers of the branch office. A perusal of Ex. O.P./84 dated 13.11.88 shows that payment of Rs. 3,67,000/- was recommended in the first instance but thereafter Alwar D. O. sent a revised report of Mr. K.A. Gupta C. A. and based on that the S. D. M. had recommended the claim for Rs. 2,95,701/- only which was found to be in order. Still payment was not made. It is after that the letter Ex. O. P./l was received. An insurance contract is a well known type of contingent contracts. See A.I.R. 1957 S. C. 669. The insurance contract had become binding by the payment of the consideration on the part of the insured, that is, by the payment of the premium and the loss having taken place, it was impossible to remit the parties to their original position. 17. After examining the record, we are of considered opinion that the insurer failed to indemnify the insured for the loss within reasonable time from date of occurrence, i.e. Sept. 16, 1987. The insurer was negligent in not settling the claim within reasonable time. The insured was wrongly deprived of the sum insured for about thirteen months and so reasonable compensation should be awarded to it. 16, 1987. The insurer was negligent in not settling the claim within reasonable time. The insured was wrongly deprived of the sum insured for about thirteen months and so reasonable compensation should be awarded to it. Right to indemnify has been given by the policy and right to compensation has been in consequence of breach of contract for not indemnifying the loss in time under sec. 14(l)(d) read with s. 18 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to award Rs. 13,438/- as compensation to the insured for the loss suffered by it. As insurance policy is a unilateral undertaking by the insurers to pay the sum insured on the happening of a specified event and it is the exclusive record of the contract, the insurers are expected to settle the claims arising out of the policy expeditiously. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. having its Head Office at 24, Whiltes Road, Madras and opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 (insurer) are directed to settle the claim of M/s Mangla Textiles, Bazaza Bazar, Alwar (Insured) arising out of Traders Combined Policy DR/85 No. 42805/140100/57/1/1577 dated October 28, 1986 for indemnifying loss by fire by making payment of Rs. 3,86,562.10 to the insured. The insurer shall also pay Rs. 13,438.00 to the insured as compensation for not settling the claim within reasonable time. Thus, the insured will be paid Rs. 3,86,562+Rs. 13,438=Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs) by the insurer. 18. It is further ordered that the insurer shall take the delivery of the salvage lying with the insured. 19. For complying with the directions relating to the payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) and taking delivery of the salvage, one months time is allowed to the insurer. 20. The rest of the claim made by the insured in its complaint is dismissed. 21. The complaint is accordingly decided as indicated above. 22. The copies of the order be sent to (1) The Regional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Tonk Road, Jaipur and (2) Shri Umedilal Agrawal, Partner of M/s Mangla Textiles, Bazaza Bazar, Alwar free of cost. 23. Mr. 21. The complaint is accordingly decided as indicated above. 22. The copies of the order be sent to (1) The Regional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Tonk Road, Jaipur and (2) Shri Umedilal Agrawal, Partner of M/s Mangla Textiles, Bazaza Bazar, Alwar free of cost. 23. Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for the insurer prays that the operation of the order may be suspended until the order is sent/supplied/obtained by the insurer and the period of one month may be reckoned from the date, copy of the order is made available to the insurer as time is likely to be taken for the preparation of the copies of the order as strike of the Government employees has not been called off as yet. 24. We have considered the prayer made by Mr. Vinod Tyagi. learned counsel for the insurer. The strike of the Government employees has been going on since January 9,1989 and preparation of the copies of the order will take some time after the order is typed. Period prescribed for filing the appeal is thirty days from the date of the order In these circumstances, it is ordered that the order will be enforceable after one month to be reckoned from the date, copy of order is sent/supplied to the Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Tonk Road, Jaipur Pronounced on Feb. 21, 1989.