1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., herein Appellant, seeks reversal of the order dated 1-8-1995 propounded by J&K State Consumers, Protection Commission ("Commission") awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- interest 18% to the complainant besides Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss suffered, as a result of neglect of the Insurance Company, by way of damages, through the medium of this appeal. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal put tersely are that Fayaz Ahmed Kapta, complainant, got his electronics goods alongwith shop insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. On payment of premium of Rs. 1,925/- effective from 8th August, 1989 for a space of one year, for a sum of Rs. four lacs. On account of heavy rains and resulting in abrupt over-flowing of drains causing seepage into the shop occasioned damage to the electronic goods necessitating the complainant in intimating the Insurance Company about the loss, besides making a report with the police on 1 -9-1989. Chartered Accountant, Ramesh Sazawal, came to be detailed by the Insurance Company to estimate the loss, which, according to the complainant, was assessed at Rs. 40.000/-. Failure of the Insurance Company to settle his claim occasioned a cause of action to prefer a complaint before the J&K State Consumers Protection Commission, which allowed the claim of the complaint alongwith damages penultimately vide its order dated 1-8-1995. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company impugned its correctness in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record in context with material annexed thereto. The admitted facts emerging out of the record are that on being intimated by the complainant about the loss of goods, a surveyor, Mr. Sazawal was deputed for carrying out the survey and assess, the loss by the Insurance Company. According to the complainant, Companys surveyor, Mr. Sazawal, assessed the loss at Rs. 40,000/- but his report has never seen light of the day. The plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the surveyor had fled away from the valley and his whereabouts are not known. 5. It is also not disputed by the Insurance Company that there were several representations made by the complainant from times to time for the settlement of the claim, but as is a gatherable from the record that the Insurance Company has been conducting itself in a most casual and cavalier manner. 5. It is also not disputed by the Insurance Company that there were several representations made by the complainant from times to time for the settlement of the claim, but as is a gatherable from the record that the Insurance Company has been conducting itself in a most casual and cavalier manner. The plea of the Insurance company that it has not been able to procedure the report from the surveyor, Mr. Sazawal, evidently turns out to be unbelievable for want of a plausible explanation and rendered unjustifiable. No effective steps have been taken by the Insurance Company to make the assessment of the loss and instead came up with a plea that the complainant had fabricated the claim. It is also admitted that Mr. Sazawal was working as surveyor of United India Insurance Company and in such an event, it was its responsibility to get hold of the report after he was deputed to assess the loss which, in this case, has not been done, nor had any explanation been put forth by the appellants counsel during debate. All these facts and circumstances enumerated above lead to irresistible conclusion that the complaints plea of assessment of loss by the Company surveyor at Rs. 40,000/- cannot be said to be without substance. Even it could not be justified by the appellants counsel as to how the claim presented by the complainant in respect of loss of the goods in his shop has been fabricated in view of its own misconduct in dealing with the case under the contract of Insurance with its customers and failure to procure the report from the surveyor. Mr. Sazawal, deputed first in point of time, who happened to be working with the company at the relevant time. The Insurance Company, it appears, instead of adverting to the assessment of loss, which occasioned to the complainant, emphasized more on the locale of the shop and clearly smacks of unwarranted, unreasonable and illogical approach in declaring the complainants claim, manipulating and deviating from its prime duty towards subscriber in the event of loss. It is itself sufficient to negative the contention. The appellants plea being legally infirm and factually frail does not merit acceptance. 6. It is itself sufficient to negative the contention. The appellants plea being legally infirm and factually frail does not merit acceptance. 6. We did bestow anxious reflection on the materials found on record in the light of submissions made by the counsel for the appellant but with due regard to their peculiarities ad probabilities, we have stabilized ourselves on the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 40,000/-awarded by the Commission as compensation is affirmed but with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of six months after filing the claim before the Insurance Company till the date of deposit in the Court, and after deposit, proportionate accrued amount of interest, if any. Further, damages allowed by the Commission to the claimant are reduced to the Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the company. Any excess amount found deposited by the Company on calculation shall be refunded to the Company. With this modification the appeal stands disposed of.