JUDGMENT Delivered by Sri Surendra Kumar, Senior Member: This complaint has been filed by M/s National Electricals, Near Gandhi Park, Thana Jaspur, Dist. Udham Singh Nagar through its Proprietor, Sh. Vijay Singh for recovery of loss of stock and furniture amounting to Rs; 7,15,529/(Rupees, Seven Lacs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Nine) interest given to bank amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac), Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand) for business loss, Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lac) for mental pain and agony & Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost of litigation. The complaint has been filed for a total sum which came after amendment to Rs. 7,68,676/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.06.2001, the complainant insured his shop under Shopkeeper's Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) which included Rs. 9,40,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Forty Thousand) for stock of the shop and Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) for furniture against the fire policy No. 48/34/00128/01. valid from 11.06.2001 to 10.06.2002 and on 14.06.2001, he was issued a policy of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) for stock of the godown under fire cover note No. 167781, valid from 14.06.2001 to 13.06.2002. On 08.10.2001 due to high voltage/short circuit, the fire broke out in the shop as well as godown, due to which Eight Lacs Forty Five Thousand) and furniture of Rs. 62,000/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand) was damaged. The accounts kept in the shop. Stock register bills of sale & purchase, receipts and other papers were also damaged. Information was given to the Electricity Department. Fire Brigade, Police Station and also to the opposite party, National Insurance Co. He also lodged the ELR. in the police station. 3. It is alleged that on getting the information, the insurance company appointed Sh Manoj Joshi, surveyor and the complainant fully co-operated him and supplied all the relevant papers, which were necessary for the assessment of the loss to him. The surveyor after assessment submitted his report to the insurance company to finalize the claim for Rs. 2,12,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twelve Thousand). However, the fire officer in his report reported the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs). 4. The surveyor after assessment submitted his report to the insurance company to finalize the claim for Rs. 2,12,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twelve Thousand). However, the fire officer in his report reported the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs). 4. The complainant sent two letters to the insurance company requesting for the payment of the claim and on 14.03.2002 & 15.04.2002, supplied all the information and papers but still the insurance company did not allow the claim. Then on 30.05.2002, 18.06.2002 & 08.07.2002, the complainant sent three reminders for the payment of the claim but the insurance company did not pay anything .He alleged that according to the rules, the claim should have been settled within 3 months. He further alleged that on 25.06.2002 and 20.08.2002, the insurance company gave wrong reply to his reminders. He again alleged that the insurance company demanded those papers, which were already submitted to them on 14.03.2002, &. 15.04.2002 and those were not necessary for the settlement of the claim. He alleged that all the records of his firm were destroyed due to fire and be submitted the final stock statement of September 2001 from Allahabad Bank, from where he has got a cash credit limit of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) and also a certificate dated 01.10.2002 regarding the quantity and value of stock. After repeated requests, when his claim was not paid, he filed the complaint. 5. The opposite party, insurance company filed written statement and alleged that the complaint is not maintainable. It admitted the insurance, It further admitted the outbreak of fire on 08.10.2001. But denied the other allegations of the complaint. It again alleged that Sh. Manoj Joshi was appointed surveyor, and the surveyor asked the complainant to submit certain papers but the complainant did not provided the papers and did not extend co-operation therefore the surveyor recommended for the payment of claim on non-standard• basis and this fact was deliberately concealed by the complainant. The opposite party challenged the fire brigade report. It also challenged the correctness of the records kept by the complainant and alleged that if the complainant was availing financial facilities from the bank, they are not liable for that. It denied that it is harassing the complainant by not paying the amount of claim. It also challenged the cause of action at Dehradun. It also challenged the correctness of the records kept by the complainant and alleged that if the complainant was availing financial facilities from the bank, they are not liable for that. It denied that it is harassing the complainant by not paying the amount of claim. It also challenged the cause of action at Dehradun. It alleged that since policy was issued at Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar and loss took place at Jaspur itself It also alleged that the relief claimed is unjustified and illegal and alleged that the complainant vide his letter dated 13.03.2002 furnished some documents after lapse of more than 5 months, that too turned to be inadequate in the settlement of claim though Surveyor Sh. Manoj Joshi vide his letter dated 11.12.2001 sought invoices to support the valuation of stock, physical verification of burnt out remains in godown and stock statement, it followed by second reminder to 11.12.2001 dated 11.01.2002 (registered letter) sought fulfilment of requisite formality followed by registered A.D. letter dated 27.03.2002 and also alleged that a letter , dated 28,04.2002 was also sent which remained unreplied on part of complainant. 6. In para 22 of its written statement, it alleged that the surveyor Sh. Manoj Joshi vide his survey report dated 29,05.2002 observed on account non-availability of information or evidence to substantiate about and value of the claim, the claim is being treated as sub-standard. It also alleged that they have already paid the sanctioned amount of claim amounting to Rs.2.01.853/- (Rupees Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Three) vide cheque No. 078006 dated 01.03.2003 drawn on State Bank of India, Kashipur as payment for full and final settlement of the claim, and the amount has been received by the complainant. 7. The complainant filed amendment application dated 05.06.2003 during the 'pendency of the case and alleged that he has received a sum of Rs.2,01,853/- (Rupees Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Three) as part payment on 21.01.2003 vide cheque Nd:078006 dated 20.1.2003. In Para 2 of the amendment application he prayed that in line No.4 of Para 16 of the complaint, the amount Rs. 7,68,676/ - (Rupees Seven Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six) be now taken into consideration as he has received Rs. 2,01,853/- (Rupees Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Three) (under protest) and his complaint should be amended ac. cordingly. 8. 7,68,676/ - (Rupees Seven Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six) be now taken into consideration as he has received Rs. 2,01,853/- (Rupees Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Three) (under protest) and his complaint should be amended ac. cordingly. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The insurance is admitted. The fire is admitted. The only question is what amount of compensation should be awarded to the complainant? The fire took place on 08.10.2001 and according; to the complainant, there was stock of Rs.8,45,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Forty Five Thousand) in his shop and godown and furniture of Rs.62,000/(Rupees Sixty Two Thousand), which was destroyed by the fire. He further alleged that other relevant papers were also destroyed by the fire. He filed the copy of the F.I.R. dated 09.10.2001, copy of G.D., Police Station Jaspur, certified copy of report of Munsif dated .12.12.2001, copy of certificate issued by G.E. of Electricity Department dated 14.10.2001, copy of electricity bill of his firm, copy of newspaper cutting, copy of affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, his employee, in his affidavit. Sh. Sanjay Kumar admitted that the cause of fire was high voltage/short circuit. He also alleged that he was also injured in that fire. The report of fire brigade was also filed in which cause of fire was mentioned as electric short circuit. In this report, it was specifically alleged that it look 1.56. hours for the officers and vehicles of the fire brigade department to get control over the fire. The receipt of payment of payment of pumping charges was also filed. 9. The copy of cover note of the policy has also been filed wherein in Section 11 it is written that loss by burglary and house breaking is covered. The' affidavit of Bank Manager, Sh. M. L. Arya dated 06.09.2003 has also been filed In Para 2 of his affidavit, he admitted that his bank has given a cash credit limit of Rs.6.00.000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) to the complainant. In Para. 4. he alleged that on the last date of every month, the firm submits the stock statement mentioning therein the stock available in the firm and on 'that date the officer of the bank also physically verifies the stock. In Para. 4. he alleged that on the last date of every month, the firm submits the stock statement mentioning therein the stock available in the firm and on 'that date the officer of the bank also physically verifies the stock. He further alleged that the complainant submitted his stock statement on 01.10.2001 wherein the stock in the shop was shown for Rs.11,44,750/- (Rupees Eleven. Lacs Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) and those of godown as Rs.2,62,100/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred) and the total stock was of Rs. 14.06.850/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty) and on the same day the officer of the bank physically verified the stock and valued it on the basis of relevant papers, . which was calculated as of Rs. 14,06,850/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty). 10. The surveyor; Sh Manoj Joshi in his report dated 29.05.2002 alleged that stock of the shop was insured for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) and that of godown was insured for Rs.• 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs). In his report, he alleged that when the property was surveyed on the 9th October i.e. the day after the fire the switch board inside the shop appeared burnt and also the wiring in the godown had burn marks. The fire appears to have started ,due to apparent Electrical short circuiting. He further alleged that almost the entire godown store was gurted. Badly burnt damaged due to fire he further alleged that in the shop the fire was restricted to the display shelf on which the switch box was affixed. 3 to 4 shelves had tt1e entire content gutted and the fire also damaged stock kept in front of the shelf. The intensity of the heat partially damaged some of the stock stored immediately opposite and along side the shelf. He further alleged that the furniture was burnt and damaged & the fire also damaged the fixture and fittings. The surveyor admitted1that the financial status of the complainant is good in, business since 1990. Shop was purchased in 1996. He is also a farmer and enjoys good reputation locally and with the bank. HeJurther alleged that balance in the cash credit account on the date of fire. i.e. 08.10.2001 was Rs. 6.21 Lacs. The turnover in the account was substantial and average value of stocks declared to the Bank was approx. Rs. Shop was purchased in 1996. He is also a farmer and enjoys good reputation locally and with the bank. HeJurther alleged that balance in the cash credit account on the date of fire. i.e. 08.10.2001 was Rs. 6.21 Lacs. The turnover in the account was substantial and average value of stocks declared to the Bank was approx. Rs. 14.00 Lacs in the last 3 months. He further alleged that the shop had adequate holding capacity for stocks of Rs. 14.00 Lacs and more. He further alleged that the entire documents are not maintained, no invoice or purchase voucher is available. 11. The complainant said that due to intensity of fire all the records were burnt, the stock statement of the complainant as verified by the officials of the bank was submitted and the surveyor also admitted the financial status of t~ complainant as good. 12. The complainant also alleged that during the breakage of fire, some goods were stolen 'from the shop, which too shall be taken into consideration. The fire took place on 08.10.2001 at about 8p.rn. Since it took place in night, it is quite possible that some goods may have been stolen from the shop but there is no evidence on record to show 'what goods were actually stolen from the shop. Although Section II of the cover note also shows that loss by burglary is also covered under the policy. Due to non-availability of certain papers, the insurance company settled the claim on non-standard basis, which is ' unjustified because the complainant submitted all the papers, which were available with him to the opposite party. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 55,100/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred) for stolen goods, which was disallowed. The surveyor alleged in Para 15C of his report that the furniture, fixture and fitting were completely damages in the fire and value is as declared by the insured and assessed during survey. In Para 18 he alleged that the insured stated that there were no substantial sales between 01.10.2001 and 08.10.2001 (date of fire). Therefore, stocks as declared to the Bank on 30.09.2001 is assumed to be the stock on 08.10.2001. No transactions have been recorded by the Bank for this period. It is established on record that the loss assessed by the surveyor was on a very low side. Therefore, stocks as declared to the Bank on 30.09.2001 is assumed to be the stock on 08.10.2001. No transactions have been recorded by the Bank for this period. It is established on record that the loss assessed by the surveyor was on a very low side. The bank officials verified the stock on 01.10.2001 and found it of the value of list 11 ,44,750/ - (Rupees Eleven Lacs Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) in the shop and of Rs.2,62,100/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred) in the godown. This fact supported by an affidavit of the Bank Manager, Sh. M. L. Arya. The surveyor has himself stated that there are no transaction recorded by the Bank for this period, i.e. between 01.10.2001 and 08.10.2001 It is clear that after the fire, the stock, which was partly burnt, was not properly assessed by the surveyor and the insurance company was not justified in awarding the claim on sub-standard basis. 13. The complainant had claimed a sum of Rs. 1,61,060/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty One Thousand Sixty) for the loss of stock which was in H1e godown at the time of fire and Rs. 5,54,469/(Rupees Five Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine) for the loss of stock in the shop. The surveyor has alleged in his report that some goods were partly burnt or damaged but it is true that if some new goods are partly burnt or damaged, their saleable value is totally finished. The complainant in his claim form has claimed for completely destroyed/ burnt stock, a sum of Rs.3,09,377/(Rupees Three' Lacs Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Seven) and for stock partly burnt/damaged, a sum of Rs. 1,81,929/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine). The stock completely damaged / burnt is valued as of Rs.3,09,377/- (Rupees Three Lacs Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Seven) and there is no salvage value of these goods. In the claim form, he has further claimed a sum of Rs. 3,63,858/- (Rupees Three Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Eight) and after deduction of 50% of purchase price as value of salvage, it comes to Rs. 1,81,929/-' (Rupees One Lac Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine). He has further claimed for furniture and fittings in shop which were completely destroyed a sum of Rs. 3,63,858/- (Rupees Three Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Eight) and after deduction of 50% of purchase price as value of salvage, it comes to Rs. 1,81,929/-' (Rupees One Lac Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine). He has further claimed for furniture and fittings in shop which were completely destroyed a sum of Rs. 65,280/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred Eighty) and after allowing 10% depreciation, it comes to Rs. 62,821/ - (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty One). Under the policy, the furniture and fittings in the shop were insured for Rs. 60,000/(Rupees Sixty Thousand) only. As it has completely destroyed and 10% depreciation is to be allowed, which is Rs. 2,459/- (Rupees Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Nine). it's claim value comes to Rs. 57,541/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Forty One) and therefore the total claim of the shop comes to Rs. 5,48,847/- (Rupees Five Lacs forty eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven). (Rs. 3,09,377/- 1,81,929/57,541/-) 14. The loss assessed by the surveyor for the loss of stock in the godown was Rs.92,000/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand). As far as the claim amount of the shop is concerned, the claim amount after necessary adjustments comes, to Rs. 5,48,847/- (Rupees Five Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven) and we find it justified and reasonable to award this amount to the complainant. There is no justification in settling the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis because the stock was physically verified by the bank officials on 01.10.2001 and this fact has been supported by an affidavit of the Bank Manager. The fire brigade officials also assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs). In the light of all these evidences, we see no ground to settle the claim of the complainant on non- standard basis. 15. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has received a sum of Rs.2.01 853/- ( Rupees Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Three) from the insurance company (under protest). 16. The complainant has claimed a. sum of Rs. 1,61 ,060/- (Rupees One ,Lac Sixty One Thousand Sixty) for loss of stock in godown. The stock in god own was insured for Rs.2,00,000/ - (Rupees Two Lacs). The insurance company has awarded the loss of stock in godown for Rs.92,000/- (Rupees, Ninety Two Thousand). 16. The complainant has claimed a. sum of Rs. 1,61 ,060/- (Rupees One ,Lac Sixty One Thousand Sixty) for loss of stock in godown. The stock in god own was insured for Rs.2,00,000/ - (Rupees Two Lacs). The insurance company has awarded the loss of stock in godown for Rs.92,000/- (Rupees, Ninety Two Thousand). We find that this amount of Rs.92,000/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand) is proper and justified. Therefore the total claim of the complainant comes to Rs.6,40,847/- (Rupees Six Lacs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven) and as he has received a sum of Rs.2,01,853/-(Rupees Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty three), therefore after deducting this amount from the claim amount, the total claim of the complainant comes to Rs. 4,38,994/- (Rupees Four Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four Only). We find It proper and justified to award this amount to the complainant. The complainant shall also get interest @12% on this . amount from the date of filing of the complaint tilt the date of account payment. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-' (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for business loss and Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac) as compensation for mental paid and agony. It is a monetary transaction and in these monetary transactions, business loss cannot be awarded. It is also settled principle of law that where interest is awarded to the complainant, compensation cannot be given because interest is always inclusive of compensation. We are supported by the rulings reported in II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC), Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India, 2003 (2) CPJ Page 1 (NC) , Satelec Power Electronics Vs. HRDC and 2003 (6) CLD SCDRC, Delhi, Page 210, Rajpal Mahana Vs, National Insurance Co, Ltd. the cpmplainant has unnecessarily been. dragged into litigation, his major claim has been repudiated. In the circumstances as such he shall also get a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) from the opposite party. ORDER The complaint is hereby allowed to the extent that the complainant shall get a sum of Rs.4,38,994/- (Rupees Four Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four Only) along with interest @12% payable from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 20.12.2002 till the date of actual payment. The complainant shall also get a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) from the opposite party as cost of the proceedings.