ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - Respondent filed Complaint No. 1/2007 before the District Forum, Mandi, against the appellant for deficiency in service in not settling his insurance claim, which has been allowed directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 39,000 for loss of his general merchandise and poultry fed along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till payment with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000. 2.Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are being briefly noted. Respondent had obtained a policy in the sum of Rs. 50,000 after obtaining financial assistance from Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. Insurance cover was in respect of Karyana and feed. Name of the Financier was also entered in this policy. Premium was paid and valid policy had been issued by the appellant. On the date of incident i.e. 9.8.2006, the area where the premises of the respondent were located was lashed by heavy rains. As a result of it, his business premises were flooded on the intervening night of 9th and 10th of August, 2006 and were completely washed away. According to him, stock-in-trade, poultry feed, as well as poultry birds were completely destroyed. Thus, he suffered a loss of Rs. 60,000. This loss was reported on 11.8.2006 to the appellant who deputed a Surveyor and Loss Assessor for assessing the loss. Respondent No. 1 further claims that he had supplied necessary documents in support of his claim to the registered Surveyor as well as the appellant. Latter was dilly-dallying with settling the claim. This resulted in filing of the complaint under Section 12 wherein above mentioned relief has been awarded in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 3.After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the record of the case with their assistance, we find that no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the District Forum below for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter and therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. 4.Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant stated in support of this appeal that neither the poultry birds nor the building were insured with the appellant. Further according to him, the District Forum below has wrongly included the cost of Refrigerator and other items which were not at all insured with his client. 4.Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant stated in support of this appeal that neither the poultry birds nor the building were insured with the appellant. Further according to him, the District Forum below has wrongly included the cost of Refrigerator and other items which were not at all insured with his client. Great emphasis was laid in this behalf by Mr. Thakur on Annexure C.1, a Photostat copy of the rapat Rojnamcha Waqyati given by the respondent to Rural Revenue Officer, Revenue Circle, Drubbal, Sub-Tehsil Kotli, as well as certificate, Annexure C.2, which was not only signed by the said Revenue Officer but is also countersigned by the Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi. So far as grant of amount in question in this behalf by the District Forum below is concerned, we are in agreement with Mr. Thakur for the simple reason that what is not insured with the appellant, nothing is allowable on that account for want of contract of insurance between the parties in that behalf. Mr. Thakur further relied upon the Duplicate Schedule of the policy, copy whereof is at pages 37 and 38 of the complaint file. Nature of business is shown as all kind of Karyana and feed. Insured’s name is shown as HGB, Kotli A/C Lala Ram. A reference to these documents only suggest that what was insured, and with whom the hypothecation was, as to who was insured and the details of premium charged. Nothing else is there in this. Insurance policy has not been placed on record by the appellant. Since the date of flooding of the premises in question, the insurance in the sum of Rs. 50,000 of Karyana and feed is admitted, therefore, in our opinion, non-production of the insurance policy by the insured as respondent is of no consequence. In case, the appellant wants to take any advantage of it, and with a view to exclude its liability for payment of the amount awarded by the District Forum below, we are of the view that the appellant ought to have produced the same. That has not been done. 5.At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance that in the flood the entire stock-in-trade was washed away. That has not been done. 5.At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance that in the flood the entire stock-in-trade was washed away. That being the position, now the question arises as to whether the amount awarded in favour of the appellant though not for the entire articles insured, but for something that was not insured, still we are of the view that when nothing had survived as a result of the flood, in our opinion, question of assessment being made by the Surveyor and Loss and Assessor was wholly irrelevant. Reason being that it is just like destruction in fire the entire stock-in-trade which leaves nothing for assessment/retrieval to be done by the Loss Assessor. 6.That being the position, we are of the view that the respondent is entitled to total sum of Rs. 50,000 because he is not aggrieved from the impugned order of the District Forum below, as such we uphold the impugned order whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 39,000 has been awarded in favour of the respondent for the reasons that admitted case of both the parties is that as a result of flood, building was destroyed as also the stock in trade of Karyana and feed. As such, in our opinion, there was hardly anything that could be assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor. 7.As such, reference made by Mr. Thakur to the reports of the Revenue staff and other documents particularly on the copies of the bills filed by the respondent before the District Forum is of no consequence in the peculiar facts of this case and plea based on all these documents referred to hereinabove, has no merit and is accordingly rejected. 8.No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, though we uphold the impugned order passed by the District Forum below but not for the reasons given by it but on the ground mentioned in this order. Ordered accordingly. Appeal stands finally disposed of in these terms, leaving of the parties to bear their own costs. All interim order passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to make the copy of this order available to the parties free of costs as per Rules. M.R.B. ———————