ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) By order dated 24.07.2003 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, consumer complaint No. 95/2002 was partly allowed with cost of Rs. 500/- and insurance company was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,380/- to the complainant together with interest @ 10% p.a. by way of reimbursement of the loss of stock of electronic goods in an incident of burglary and housebreaking. Complaint was filed for award of compensation of Rs. 1,09,810/- together with interest and damages and, therefore, aggrieved by inadequacy of the compensation awarded, this appeal was preferred by the complainant. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submission in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. Learned counsel for the complainant persuasively argued that the complainant had submitted complete list of the electronic items and cameras etc. stolen away from the shop, in addition to the hard cash removed in the incident in his intimation to the Manager of the insurance company (Paper No. 69) and not only the insurance company’s surveyor, but also the District Forum illegally disallowed the loss of items, except one piece of Jolly Radio and three pieces of Sansui Audio, worth Rs. 6,380/- only, as against total loss of the items and cash amounting to Rs. 1,09,810/-. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company supported the surveyor’s assessment of loss and also the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum, by submitting that the loss actually assessed and compensation accordingly awarded, conform to the items mentioned in the First Information Report (Paper No. 68) lodged at the concerned police station on the next day of the incident of burglary and housebreaking. The incident took place in the night between 21/22.06.2000 and whereas, the FIR was lodged on 22.06.2000 at 12:10 p.m. Policy of insurance (Paper No. 26) would indicate that cash was not covered under the policy of insurance and that only stock of all kinds of electronic goods, T.V., Fridge, Washing Machine, Two in One, Camera, Stereo etc., were covered by the policy. Comparison of the list of items stolen away as mentioned in the intimation to the Manager of the insurance company (Paper No. 69) and detailed list of items as mentioned in the FIR (Paper No. 68), would reveal that Samsung Audio CD (one piece); Samsung Video Camera (two pieces) and Samsung Video CD (one piece) were not detailed in the written FIR lodged with the police. These costly items were mentioned in the intimation to the insurance company and no date on it was endorsed by the complainant and, therefore, it is difficult to ascertain as to when and after how many days of the incident, this intimation was given by the complainant. The acknowledgment receipt of such intimation by the insurance company, was also not produced on record by the complainant and, therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of the case, only those items, which were detailed in the written FIR, would be held to have been stolen in the incident from the shop. It is also of significance that the FIR was not lodged hastily, but was lodged next day of the occurrence at 12:10 p.m., when the complainant had fully assessed and counted the items taken away by the miscreants from the shop. The number of various items even mentioned in the FIR, would indicate that the report was lodged after fully assessing and counting the loss occasioned by burglary and housebreaking and it could not safely be believed that the complainant by mistake or inadvertence, had failed to mention the theft of above-mentioned three costly items, namely, one Samsung Audio CD, two Samsung Video Cameras and one Samsung Video CD, all worth Rs. 87,500/-. In other words, the FIR lodged on behalf of the complainant, sufficiently establish that these three items were not stolen from the shop and probably, the complainant with a view to seek higher amount of compensation, later on falsely alleged that these three costly items were also removed from his shop in the incident of burglary and housebreaking. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of the case and the detailed FIR of the incident on record, the complainant was entitled to be reimbursed for the loss of only two verified items, namely one piece of Jolly Radio and three pieces of Sansui Audio, worth Rs. 6,380/- only. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of the case and the detailed FIR of the incident on record, the complainant was entitled to be reimbursed for the loss of only two verified items, namely one piece of Jolly Radio and three pieces of Sansui Audio, worth Rs. 6,380/- only. Considering this peculiar aspect of the case, we need not enter into much detail about the positive observation of the surveyor that the complainant has not been able to produce relevant stock record and purchase and sales bills, when asked for by the surveyor, in order to assess the loss occasioned in the incident. 3. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity and that the assessment of the loss of Rs. 6,380/- having been reasonably made on the basis of the material on record, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.