JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:--This complaint is filed against the National Insurance Company alleging deficiency in the service. Undisputeldy, the complainants saw mill was insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The complainant alleged that in an incident dated 7-12-1992 arising out of the communal riots his saw mill was destroyed in the fire. The complainant alleged that his saw mill was attacked by riotours mob and the riotours set it on fire during the outbreak of communal frenzi. In that incident of fire the saw mill including the machinery and raw material wing in saw mill were destroyed. The complainant estaimated his loss for the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The complainant alleged that despite his requests and persuation, the opposite party failed to settle the insurance claim. Even the surveyor was not appointed by the opposite party. The complainant, therefore, carried out the inspection through private surveyor Shri Lakhadive of Akola. Shri Lakhadive has submitted his report dated 29-12-1992. Even then the opposite party did not care to settle the complainants claim. The complainant, therefore, claimed the settlement of his claim from the opposite party for the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and also claimed Rs. 3,01,000/- towards the delay and mental tension. 2. In response to the notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the opposite party did not make any appearance and, therefore, we proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party on 9-3-1994 and the complaint was fixed for ex-parte evidence on 10-5-1994. However, on 10-5-1994 Shri Deshpande, advocate appeared for the opposite party and filed affidavit and certain documents. However, on the date of final hearing i.e. on 7-10-1994, the complainant was represented by Shri Rathi, advocate and none appeared for the opposite party. The complainant filed this complaint on verification and also filed the documents such as the cover note of the policy, the copy of the F.I.R. dated 10-12-1992 lodged in Akola Police Station and copies of the correspondence. 3. The complainant also filed the affidavit of Laljibhai Mehta in which the allegations made in the complaint were affirmed on solemn oath. The opposite party filed its written statement after which the commission proceeded ex-parte against it. The opposite party in its written version admittedly issued the insurance policy to the complainant and also admitted the incident of fire on 7-12-1992. The opposite party filed its written statement after which the commission proceeded ex-parte against it. The opposite party in its written version admittedly issued the insurance policy to the complainant and also admitted the incident of fire on 7-12-1992. However, the opposite party disputed the complainants claim of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the loss caused in the incident of fire. The only defence of the opposite party is that there was no policy in force at the time of the incident of fire i.e. on 7-12-1992. Therefore, the only question to be decided by us is whether the complainants saw mill was provided with the insurance cover by the opposite party and whether it was valid on 7-12-1992. The complainant has filed on record an interim protection cover note dated 13-12-1991 issued by National Insurance Company from Akola Branch. It is found from the said cover note that the amount of Rs. 4,457/- was paid towards the premium on policy and the policy was covering the risk from 13-12-1991 to 12-12-1992. The incident of fire is dated 7-12-1992 i.e. prior to the expiry of the issue of the cover note. 4. We have heard Shri Rathi, advocate for the complainant. Whereas, none appeared for the National Insurance Company at the time of hearing. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the allegations and documents on record. The complainant has filed on record the copy of fire policy "C" meant for the insured. It is signed on behalf of the National Insurance Company Ltd. by duly constituted attorney. The contents of the policy clearly show that against Policy No. 270505/3100549 of 1991, a cover note No. 023027 was issued on 13-12-1991 for a period of 12 months from 13-12-1991 to 12-12-1992. The policy is in the name of complainant and the sum insured is Rs. 4,00,000/-. The conditions of the policy are terrorism and the payment of Rs. 4,680/- and Rs. 12 were paid towards the premium charges. The cover note clearly indicates the property insured near Rajkumar Talkies, Akola. It is also stated at the end of the policy under the following words "the insurance under this policy is subject to warranties and clauses as per form attached and is extended to cover risk of laws per forms attached. The aforesaid documents clearly indicates that renewal of the earlier policy on payment of premium charges. It is also stated at the end of the policy under the following words "the insurance under this policy is subject to warranties and clauses as per form attached and is extended to cover risk of laws per forms attached. The aforesaid documents clearly indicates that renewal of the earlier policy on payment of premium charges. The incident of fire took place on 7-12-1992. However, the aforesaid policy clearly indicates the period of insurance of 12 months commencing from 13-12-1991 to 12-12-1992. The incident of fire has taken place within the aforesaid period of 12 months and, therefore, the complainants property was clearly insured under the aforesaid policy. Thus, the contention of the Insurance Policy that complainant had no valid insurance on 7-12-1992 is not correct. We, therefore, finds that the complainants justifiable claim has been wrongly rejected by the opposite party on erroneous considerations. It is a clear incident of deficiency in the service of opposite party. No appearance has been made by the opposite party at the time of hearing. Hence, we have no reason to reject the claim of the complainant. We are satisfied that the complainant has proved his allegations and, therefore, his claim arising out of the Insurance Policy in question requires to be allowed. The complainant has claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the amount of policy and also claimed Rs. 3,01,000/- (three lacks one thousand) towards the mental tension. However, the complainants claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the settlement of his Insurance Policy is required to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Akola is directed to settle the complainants claim in policy for the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and shall also pay him Rs. 4,000/- towards the cost of the appeal. The rest of the claims of complainant are hereby rejected. Appeal allowed. *****