ORDER As per Hon 'ble Smt. Veena Misra, Member :- 1. Both these appeals under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the order dated 24.04.06 in complaint No.5/05 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District ' Forum for short) whereby the complaint was partly allowed and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of there appeals are that as per averments in the complaint, the complainant had got his rice mill building, office, godown, stock, plant and machinery etc. insured with the OP insurer under policy No. 2005/44 for the period from 15.06.04 to 14.06.05. During the subsistence of the aforesaid insurance, on 9.07.04 iii about 12:30 Truck No. CG 07-ZC/0722 had damaged the wall of the mill while reversing the truck thereby the hopper, with forty ton paddy, had fallen down on 'the machinery thereby damaging the same and causing loss to the complainant as detailed in the complaint. It was further averred in the complaint that the OP was informed on the next date and a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to Rs. 2,40,000/- and thereafter the claim was repudiated by the insurer. 3. The OP insurer had resisted the claim and had averred in the written version that the cause of accident was ralsely intimated. The intimation given to the police showed that the tank had fallen on the machinery and it was further submitted in the written version that as the fall of the tank was due to negligence of the employee of the insured, the damage was not covered under the policy of insurance , It was further averred that the accident as had happened could not be caused by reversing the truck, hence as the claim was false the insurer repudiated the same and it cannot be termed as deficiency in service on part of the insurer. 4. Learned District Forum partly allowed the claim and both the complainant and OP insurer came tip in appeal. Appeal No. 170/06 has been filed by the complainant whereas appeal No. 193/06 has been filed by the OP insurer. In view of the facts that both the parties have come up in appeal, the parties will be referred to as complainant and OP insurer for the sake of convenience. 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. 6. Appeal No. 170/06 has been filed by the complainant whereas appeal No. 193/06 has been filed by the OP insurer. In view of the facts that both the parties have come up in appeal, the parties will be referred to as complainant and OP insurer for the sake of convenience. 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant in appeal No. 170/06 submitted that though the complainant had filed bills, vouchers, receipts etc. and had also filed affidavits to prove the averments of the complaint, the learned District Forum has only partly allowed the complaint. He further submitted that the surveyor himself had assessed the loss at Rs. 3,84,604/- but the amount payable after deduction is stated to be Rs 3,41 ,220/-However, the insurer has not stated as to why deduction ofRs.43,384/- has been made. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate this fact and allowed the amount of only Rs 3,41 ,2201-. The counsel further submitted that the hopper structure was to be cut into pieces, fabrication work was done, new hopper structure was required to be installed, labour charges were paid but the learned District Forum has failed to grant amount for the same. He further submitted that the complainant had only claimed actual loss suffered due to loss to machinery and not claimed for the business loss suffered by the complainant because the Rice Mill being out of order, still the learned Forum did not allow full compensation for actual loss to machinery and cost of its repair etc. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount paid towards mental harassment is also not sufficient. He prayed that appeal No. 170/06 may be allowed and the order of the District Forum may be modified. The appeal of the insurer be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the complainant relied on United India Insurance Company & others Vs. M/s Jehangir Spinners Pvt. Ltd. 1, M/s Vipul Motors Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr, Shiv Khanna Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.3 to demonstrate that higher interest ought to have been awarded. 7. As against this, the learned counsel for the insurer/respondent in appeal No. 170/06 and appellant in appeal No. 193/06 submitted that the order of the District Forum is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. Ltd. & anr, Shiv Khanna Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.3 to demonstrate that higher interest ought to have been awarded. 7. As against this, the learned counsel for the insurer/respondent in appeal No. 170/06 and appellant in appeal No. 193/06 submitted that the order of the District Forum is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that there is discrepancy in the intimation given to the Police but the Forum below failed to appreciate the same. He submitted that in the first intimation, it is stated that due to tank falling on the machinery there has been damage because the tank had fallen on the machinery at about 1.30 on 9.7.2004 whereas in the subsequent intimation it is stated that on 9.07.2004 at about 12:30 Truck NO.C.G.07 ZC 0722 had come for taking paddy husk and while reversing, the truck hit the wall thereby hopper of the mining mill fell down on various machines. Learned counsel submitted that two versions regarding the incident raise suspicion but the Forum below failed to appreciate the same. He further submitted that as per terms of policy, the loss suffered by the insured due to negligence of his employees during course of their employment is not payable by the insurer. He further submitted that though the complainant had given intimation to the police but had also stated that he does not wish to pursue the matter against the truck owner, this also raises suspicion but the learned Forum did not attach importance to the same. He further submitted that the surveyor investigated the spot and enquired from the labourers leading the incident and he was told that due to negligence of the employee while operating the machines the hopper had fallen down, causing damage to the machinery. He further submitted that the insurer had filed affidavit of the surveyor but the complainant failed to rebut there neither did he examine any of labourers present at the time of the alleged incident, truck driver or anyone else. He further submitted that the surveyor Nikhilesh Kumar has experience of nearly 25 years and his report is authentic but the learned District Forum has erred in not giving due weightage to the said report. He further submitted that the surveyor Nikhilesh Kumar has experience of nearly 25 years and his report is authentic but the learned District Forum has erred in not giving due weightage to the said report. He further submitted that the complainant has to prove his own case but the complainant has failed to file any expert report to demonstrate as to how the damage was caused. He prayed that order of the learned District Forum may be set aside, Appeal No. 193/2004 may be allowed and the complainant's appeal as well as the complaint may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the insurer relied on Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Samir Chandra Choudhary. 8. Indisputably, in the first letter through which the intimation of the accident was given to the police in writing on 10.07.2004, the complainant had only mentioned that the machinery has damaged due to fall of hopper without mentioning any cause for such fall whereas in the second letter it is mentioned that the hopper had fallen due to the truck mention in the letter hitting the wall while reversing. Probably, as the complainant did not wish to take any action against the truck owner for whatever reason, he did not mention the cause of damage in the first letter but subsequently he thought proper to give intimation regarding the behind fall of hopper also, hence he wrote 'another latter. In the intimation to the insurer, the cause was very much mentioned. There can be no doubt that the visit of the surveyor was subsequent to the intimation given to the insurer on 10.07.04. Under the circumstances, it cannot be believed that owner had cooked up a false story of damage being caused due to the wall being hit by the reversing truck, resulting in fall of the hopper. Had he cooked up any such story, he would have taken all precautions not to tell the surveyor regarding negligent act of the employee, as has been alleged in the report of the surveyor. 9. Further, it is mentioned in the report - 'asking as how the mishap occurred. I was told that one elevator had stuck and operator tried to clear the same by reverting & forwarding Its motion due to which the 18' high elevator vibrated & simultaneously the structure vibrated & the hopper with full load collapsed with structure on the machines'. Further, it is mentioned in the report - 'asking as how the mishap occurred. I was told that one elevator had stuck and operator tried to clear the same by reverting & forwarding Its motion due to which the 18' high elevator vibrated & simultaneously the structure vibrated & the hopper with full load collapsed with structure on the machines'. It is surprising to note that there is no mention in the report as to who had told all this to the surveyor. The surveyor has also not recorded statement of any person available on the spot. In the circumstances, the finding in this regard given in the report cannot be accepted. 10. Further, in the circumstances of the case the surveyor ought to have inspected truck No.CG,07-ZC-0722 also and recorded statement of the driver and owner of the said truck but nothing of the sort appears to have been done. Though, as mentioned at the end of the report, the surveyor had collected papers of the relevant truck and had enclosed the same with the report but neither the surveyor nor the insurer got the matter investigated to eliminate any possibility of accident / cause of damage as alleged by the complainant. 11. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the insurer has failed to prove that the damage was due to negligence of the employees of the insured while acting in the course of their employment, though they had every opportunity to do so. 12. We are of the opinion that Divisional Manager,' United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anrs case relied by the insurer would have not application because the facts and circumstances of the case are different. In that case, there was a report from the Meteorological authority that there was not storm whereas the complainant in that case had stated that loss to the car was caused due to a storm which resulted in falling of the branch of the Eucalyptus tree. In the case in hand, there is no proof that the truck had not hit the wall resulting in fall of hopper, though the insurer had every opportunity to conduct survey and investigation, including investigation regarding the vehicle in question. In the case in hand, there is no proof that the truck had not hit the wall resulting in fall of hopper, though the insurer had every opportunity to conduct survey and investigation, including investigation regarding the vehicle in question. We are of the opinion that minor discrepancy in the description of accident, not going to the root of the matter, does not disentitle the complainant from claiming compensation. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the appeal No. 193/06 is devoid of merit, hence it is dismissed. 13. So far as Appeal No. 170/06 is concerned it is noted that the complainant / appellant had challenged the award for being on the lower side and also that the deductions made by the surveyor were not justified and also that no amount was paid towards cutting of hopper structures fabrication work and labour payment etc. However, on perusal of Survey Report it is evident that all relevant details have been given in para 8, 11 and 12 which justify the deductions as well as show that labour charges for dismantling the damaged structure and hopper and those for re- fabrication of complete structure and hopper as well as cable reopening refitting for necessary repairs have been considered. Hence, we are of the opinion that the award based on Surveyors Report is just and proper and there is no need of interference with the same. So far as the amount of interest is concerned, the complainant has filed various case law of other State Commissions to show that rate of interest should be 12%. It is noted that the said cases were decided in 1999 or 2000. Presently, we are consistently allowing interest@ 9%. Hence, the award of interest @ 6% appears to be on the lower side. Hence, the order of the District Forum is modified to that extent and it is directed that the amount of interest as mentioned in para 14(a) of the impugned order shall be substituted as @9%. Appeal No. 170/06 is partly allowed and order of the District Forum is modified as aforesaid. Appeal Partly Allowed.