Heard Mr. J.A. Kawoosa Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant/company and Mr. Sami Yaqoob Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Admit With the consent of learned counsel for the Parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. The incontrovertable facts leading up to this appeal are that the complainant firm having its principal business place at Namblabal, Pampore, got its goods in trade insured in the year 1994-95 for Rs. 4,00,000/- against the premium of Rs.2, 103/- against policy No. 9800263394. This is on 3.11.1995 as a result of cross-firing between unidentified gunman and security forces near the shop of the complainant, the insured stocks in trade of the complainant were ransacked in the millee caused by the said cross firing. That on 09.11.1995 complainant- firm raised an insurance claim before the appellant/company through the medium of a letter stating therein that his shop stand ransacked due to cross firing. On receipt of this report in the form of a letter, the appellant/company deputed one Mr. Javed Hussain their Surveyor to inspect the site and to submit a preliminary report. Pursuant to that, the Surveyor inspected the site and submitted his estimated report which is marked as annexure 02 on the Commission file, which shows, inter-alia estimated loss of Rs 70000/-. Thereafter the claim has been declared as no claim by virtue of annexure- 0-3 on the commission file on the ground that the complainant/respondent has not reported to the Surveyor. Thereafter, the respondent firm came to approach the State Consumer protection Commission, Srinagar, (herein referred to as the Commission) through the medium of a complaint which came to be registered as Complaint No. 6 of 2000 seeking therein an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as principal amount on account of actual loss suffered, interest @ 15% at quarterly rests on the aforesaid amount payable from the date of loss till the date of final payment a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under head unreasonable delay, a sum of Rs 1,00, 000/- as compensation under the head harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficient services of the OP and also litigation which came to be quantified at Rs 50,000/-. The appellant company in their objection came to resist the petition mainly on the ground, that the complaint is time barred because the complainant/respondent failed to furnish the requisite documents and that the complaint is barred by time, because the claim of the complainant was closed as `No Claim in this behalf, letter dated 21.1.1999 was sent to the complainant/respondent; therefore, he could agitate disclaimer as per terms of policy within a period of 12 months from the date of said disclaimer, but no such action was taken by-the complainant in this behalf within the stipulated period of 12 months from the date of letter of disclaimer. However, it is admitted that the loss was estimated by the Surveyor at Rs., 70,000/- on his preliminary visit to the site. In support of his claim before the Commission, the respondent/complainant filed his own affidavit and he came also to be cross examined. In rebuttal, the appellant/company filed the affidavits of its two witnesses namely Javaid Hussain, Surveyor and N.I. H. Rafiqui Incharge Branch manager of the Company, who subjected themselves to cross examination as well. The -learned commission on conclusion of the enquiry came to award Rs 1,50,000/ together with interest @ 12% from the date 6 months after the incident as the cost of loss, and Rs 40,000/- as compensation to the complainant after holding that :-- "We think safer side in such circumstances is to accept the first rough estimate of complainant regarding loss of damage i.e. Rs. 1.50 lacs. So we direct the OP to indemnify the complainant by an amount of &.1.50 lacs with 12% interest from the date 6 months after the incident as the cost of loss. Secondly, it is undisputed fact that the claim has been made on 3.11.1995. For the last 5 years it was not settled by the OP which caused mental agony and harassment to him and more over monetary loss also was caused to him so we direct the complainant to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the complainant." 4. The stand of Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/Company is that under the terms of policy, the complainant/respondent was under obligation to prefer the complaint in hand before the Commission within 12 months from the date he has been intimated that his case has been closed as `No claims. 40,000/- as compensation to the complainant." 4. The stand of Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/Company is that under the terms of policy, the complainant/respondent was under obligation to prefer the complaint in hand before the Commission within 12 months from the date he has been intimated that his case has been closed as `No claims. He submits that in this case, by virtue of letter dated 21.1.1999, the complainant/ respondent was informed that his claim was closed as `No claim for the reason that he has failed to furnish the requisite documents before the Surveyor appointed in this case by the Appellant/Company. Despite this information, furnished to him he came to file the complaint before the Commission on 01.7.2002 that is well after 12 months. Therefore the complaint being time barred, is liable to be dismissed. He further contends that the impugned judgment is erroneous in law to the extent quantum also because there is no evidence on the file that the complainant/respondent has undergone loss due to ransacking of shop to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The interest awarded also is on the higher side and runs counter to the law holding the field as set at rest by the Apex Court at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. On the other hand, the stand of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent is that the complainant has immediately reported the ransacking of his shop to the appellant/company and despite production of the documents namely copy of Insurance Policy and Claim form; Bills of purchase and statement of stocks; estimate of loss to stocks; trading Accounts and balance sheets; and final police report to the surveyor, the claim of the complainant/respondent has not been settled and paid to him by the appellant/company. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 7. On perusal of letter dated 21.01.1999 marked as annexure 0-3 to the Commission file, addressed to complainant/respondent intimating him that his claim has been closed as `No claim, for the reason that he failed to contact the Surveyor. This letter is not proved on the file, nor does it disclose as to when this letter was sent to the complainant/respondent, nor is there any service report appended to it. This letter is not proved on the file, nor does it disclose as to when this letter was sent to the complainant/respondent, nor is there any service report appended to it. Therefore, this can be safely said that the complainant/respondent was never informed that his claim has been closed as `No Claim . Therefore fore, the argument that the complaint is time barred, is rejected. 8. Record of the case reveals that about the loss of his shop, the Complainant/respondent immediately on 9.11.1999 reported the ransacking of his shop, but the contents of this letter marked as annexure 0-1 on the Commission file does not disclose the Cost estimated by the complainant at Rs 1,50,000/- because the report is written in Urdu language and it is signed by the proprietor of the firm in the same language, but on the right side there is an endorsement made in english showing estimated loss at Rs 150,000/-. This endorsement appears to have been made by somebody in the office of the appellant /Company and not by the complainant/respondent himself. 9. The complainant/respondent in support of complaint has filed his only affidavit wherein he has stated his estimated cost at Rs. 2, 99, 274/ - but in support of this averment he has neither produced any ocular evidence nor any documentary evidence in the form of voucher or bill of any company where from he had purchased the item shown as destroyed in the memo of estimate of loss filed by him before the Commission marked as annexure C-1. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the estimate cost of his trade in stock, destroyed in the ransacking of his shop at Rs. 2,99,274/-. Javaid Hussain, Surveyor, whose affidavit has been filed by the appellant/company has stated, inter-alia, in his affidavit that on 9.11.1995 he was deputed by the appellant/ Company to conduct the preliminary survey of loss caused by the complainant/respondent, he immediately rushed to the spot and found by virtue of his observation that the Complainant/respondent has undergone loss to the tune of Rs. 70,000/-. However, he could not finalise the loss estimate report because the complainant, respondent did not provide him with the requisite documents. 70,000/-. However, he could not finalise the loss estimate report because the complainant, respondent did not provide him with the requisite documents. N. H. Rafiqui, incharge Branch Manager of the appellant/Company has corroborated the version of the surveyor Javed Hussain to the extent that preliminary survey disclosed the estimate loss caused to the stocks of the complainant/respondent during ransacking at Rs. 70,000/ There is nothing in the evidence of the witnesses of the Company or on the record to show that the complainant/respondent was ever directed by the Surveyor or by the said Incharge Branch manager of the appellant/ Company to produce the requisite documents before the company and despite their asking he did not produced the same. On the other hand, complainant/respondent has stated on oath that he produced the requisite documents before the Surveyor. All this shows that there is nothing on record to prove that the complainant/respondent has undergone loss to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- as found proved by the commission, because, there is nothing to show in the first report submitted by him to the Company immediately after, the incident that his estimated loss is Rs. 1.5 lacs. It is the admitted case of the parties that Javed Hussain Surveyor, inspected the spot, that to say shop of the complainant/respondent and it is admitted by the appellant/Company that on his rough estimate on visiting the site on the very day of the lodging of the claim he estimated the loss to the complainant/respondent at Rs..70,000/-. In absence of any evidence, on the-record. We have no option but to accept the estimated loss report of Rs. 70,000/- by the Surveyor Javed Hussain as approximate loss because the same has been made on 09-11-1995 the following day of the incident. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 70,000/- deserves to be awarded to the complainant/respondent for the loss which he has undergone in the ransacking his shop which was duly covered by Insurance cover by the appellant/company. Awarding of Rs.1,50,000/- by the Commission is based on no evidence, therefore, the award is liable to be modified to the afore extent. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 70,000/- deserves to be awarded to the complainant/respondent for the loss which he has undergone in the ransacking his shop which was duly covered by Insurance cover by the appellant/company. Awarding of Rs.1,50,000/- by the Commission is based on no evidence, therefore, the award is liable to be modified to the afore extent. The Commission has also awarded interest @ 12% under the head loss suffered by the complainant/ respondent which is also on the higher side, because the law holding the field now set at rest by the Apex court, the rate of interest is fixed as 9% per annum instead of 12% awarded by the commission. This takes us to the compensation awarded to the Complainant/respondent under the head deficiency in service. The Commission has awarded Rs.40,000/-. The same is on the higher side, However an amount of Rs.30,000/- appears reasonable deserves to be awarded. This being so the award is liable to be modified in this behalf also. 10. Therefore, with afore modifications, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of Rs. 70,000/- is awarded under :the head cost of loss together with interest @ 9% from the date of 6 months from the date of incident in question and Rs 30,000/- is awarded instead of Rs 40, 00 0/- awarded by the Commission as compensation which shall be payable by the appellant/Company forthwith.