G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. This complaint was filed in the commission on 27.04.2001 with the averments that complainant owned three storeyed building situated in Nazuk Mohalla of the town of Anantnag which he had insured from the OPs under insurance policy bearing no. 11/05/00542. The policy was valid from 12-07-94 to 11-07-95. It was general Fire Insurance Policy B and the risk covered was to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The house hold articles including items of furniture lying therein and fixtures inside were insured for a risk of Rs. 1.00 lakh. It is alleged that during the intervening night of 11-12-94, the said insured building as well as insured household articles, furniture and fixtures were gutted in fire which had broken out suddenly in that locality engulfing the other building too. The incident was reported in the concerned police station and case was registered under section 436 RPC. The claim was raised with the OPs and they deputed preliminary surveyor who went on spot and prepared the final report. The complainant on his own also got the loss assessed from the Executive Engineer, R&B Division Anantnag. The OPs failed to settle the claim despite many representations made to them. At last, legal notice was served, but even then no action was taken thereon. The complainant was in this way compelled to file the present complaint. The reliefs claimed are that the OPs may be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of loss till the final payment is made. 2. The OPs have resisted the claim. In their written version preliminary objection was taken to the effect that complaint was time barred. That no intimation of the alleged loss was ever given to the OPs and on that count the claim could not be registered. That no cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant. On fact, it is pleaded that after the receipt of the legal notice, process of scanning the record was started in order to ascertain the factual position. That the alleged official communication entered by the OPs with the Senior Superintendent of Police and with the Asstt. Director Fire Services as alleged in the complaint is false and fabricated. On fact, it is pleaded that after the receipt of the legal notice, process of scanning the record was started in order to ascertain the factual position. That the alleged official communication entered by the OPs with the Senior Superintendent of Police and with the Asstt. Director Fire Services as alleged in the complaint is false and fabricated. It is a stale claim because the alleged incident is of the year 1994 whereas, the complaint was filed in the year 2001. 3. In support of the complaint, the complainant himself has appeared as his witness as well as examined Gh. Mohammad Shah and Shambu Nath and Ghulam Nabi Shah as witnesses. He has also produced photocopy of the preliminary survey report prepared by Syed Irfan who is an authorized surveyor. The complainant got him examined as a witness by procuring his forcible attendance with the help of the Commission. Besides that, he has also produced on record the Photostat copy of the report dated 19-07-2001 allegedly prepared by Mr. Parveen Aggarwal for H. Kannan & Co. No evidence was led by the OPs. However, they emphatically denied the correctness of the report of said Mr. Parveen Aggarwal. On such a denial, the Commission ordered that OPs to produce said Mr. Parveen Aggarwal as their witness but after seeking many adjournments they could not produce him. Finally, on 29-06-2005, his evidence was closed. On 28-04-2007 the OPs were directed to produced the "Claim File" record of the complaint in the Commission, but they failed to do so. 4. The complainant in his cross-examination has stated that immediately after the incident, the OPs were informed about the incident and confirmation thereof was received. Gh. Mohammad Shah is the real brother of the complainant and he supports the version of the complainant on material particulars. In cross-examination, he stated that he also accompanied the complainant to give information regarding the incident. That he did not know his name but would recognize him. To the same effect is the version of Shambu Nath, witness and in his cross-examination he further stated that on the day of the incident he had been staying in the house of the complainant as his guest. According to him, his own belongings were too damaged in that fire incident. Ghulam Nabi Shah has also deposed on those lines. To the same effect is the version of Shambu Nath, witness and in his cross-examination he further stated that on the day of the incident he had been staying in the house of the complainant as his guest. According to him, his own belongings were too damaged in that fire incident. Ghulam Nabi Shah has also deposed on those lines. Through the assistance of the Commission, the complainant got Syed Irfan Alam Surveyor examined as his witness. He has deposed that he became the authorized surveyor in the year 1990 and after receiving the directions from the OPs, he prepared the preliminary survey report which was submitted to the OPs alongwith the photographs of the burnt building. He produced the Photostat copy of the original report which was exhibited as EXP-1. That after the receipt of his report, it was the legal duty of the OPs to get the loss assessed from a competent surveyor/loss assessor. In cross-examination conducted by the counsel of the OPs he admitted that he had received his fee from the OPs and still was working as a surveyor. That he had submitted his preliminary report to the OPs within three months after his deputation. That while making the preliminary survey, he had also made enquires from the local inhabitants who reside in the close proximity of the insured building including some other sufferers of the same fire incident. 5. Heard the arguments. 6. Mr. Wahid Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently pleaded that genuine claim of the present bonafide consumer was not settled by the concerned official/officials for some ulterior motives which fact is apparent from the accusations made against the complainant of vituperative nature to the effect that he had approached the Commission in a fraudulent manner as there was no record available in the office of the OPs for the issuance of insurance policy in his favour or raising of the claim after the incident. In para no. 3 of the written version it is stated: - "The photocopy of the policy relied upon by the complainant is being scanned in the office of the OP for the purpose of ascertaining its genuineness. In the event, the same is found genuine or otherwise, the requisite information would be conveyed to the Honorable Commission." Regarding the communication bearing no. 3 of the written version it is stated: - "The photocopy of the policy relied upon by the complainant is being scanned in the office of the OP for the purpose of ascertaining its genuineness. In the event, the same is found genuine or otherwise, the requisite information would be conveyed to the Honorable Commission." Regarding the communication bearing no. INS/Rd/95/68 dated 23-03-95 entered by SSP Anantnag with Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Srinagar wherein the alleged incident is admitted with further qualification that: - "That Investigation of the case is going on", it is replied in Para no. 4 of the written version: - "The said document appears to be self made and cannot be relied upon." Such baseless pleas were taken in order to defeat the claim of the complainant on the main plea that it was a time barred claim filed in the Commission beyond the period of limitation. After the filing of the complaint, the OPs got the claim investigation from M/S Jhelum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., Who vide their report no. JISR/2001-2002/1608 dated 14-11-2001 submitted before the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Office Anantnag had informed him that it was a genuine case and complainant was not involved in the commission of fraud or scandal. He has referred to the preliminary survey report (EXP-1) submitted by the preliminary surveyor who in clear terms after visiting the spot on 18-12-94 had admitted the incident. That report further states that besides the building in question other houses of the people living in that vicinity were also burnt in the fire. In the report, the total loss of the insured building comprising of three storeys has been admitted alongwith household articles in the form of utensils, provisions, clothings etc. The report also makes a mention of the Photostat copy of the final report prepared by surveyor and loss assessor namely, Kannal & Co. through Parveen Aggarwal. The date of the preparation of the report is 29-07-2001 and its Photostat copy is placed on record wherein it has been mentioned that the surveyor/loss assessor Mr. Aggarwal could not visit the spot immediately after his appointment because of fear of life from the terrorists and claim was kept pending. through Parveen Aggarwal. The date of the preparation of the report is 29-07-2001 and its Photostat copy is placed on record wherein it has been mentioned that the surveyor/loss assessor Mr. Aggarwal could not visit the spot immediately after his appointment because of fear of life from the terrorists and claim was kept pending. That before 29-07-2001, the spot was visited in the company of preliminary surveyor Syed Irfan Alam but no remnants of the debris of the burnt building were found as it was an incident of 7 years past. The site of the building was observed as lying vacant. Assessment of insured household articles and other items could not be made because no remnant was found. However, on the basis of the preliminary report the assessment of the loss of the insured building after consulting Syed Irfan Alam, surveyor was made at Rs. 275739/-. No assessment was made of the loss of insured household articles etc. 7. In rebuttal Mr. M.A. Dar the learned counsel of the OPs has submitted that he drafted the written version on the basis of information supplied to him in writing by the then Divisional manager vide his letter dated 01-05-2001 wherein it was stated that OPs had not received any information regarding the raising of the claim in question and no claim had been registered in the concerned record. That on the basis of such official information, it was pleaded in the written version that it was a case of misrepresentation and fraud as well as barred by limitation. On the last dates of hearings, the learned counsel of the OP had been directed by the Commission to produce the claim file of the complainant for perusal. Today he has produced the same and we have perused it. It is found that complainant had given intimation of the loss to the OPs by presenting an application drafted in Urdu language and some official of the OPs had written a note thereon for the appointment of preliminary surveyor namely, Mr. P.A. Bhat. The claim file contains a copy of the letter dated 28-12-94 which recites that Mr. P.A. Bhat was informed of his appointment and direction had been given to him on 28-04-94 for making the preliminary survey and submission of the report within three months. P.A. Bhat. The claim file contains a copy of the letter dated 28-12-94 which recites that Mr. P.A. Bhat was informed of his appointment and direction had been given to him on 28-04-94 for making the preliminary survey and submission of the report within three months. There is no copy of the preliminary survey report or final assessment report on the record of the claim file. After perusal, the claim file was returned to the learned counsel. 8. After considering the respective contentions of the counsel of the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that concerned official/officials dealing with the claim case of the complainant has/have for some oblique motive tried to defeat his genuine claim. In the written version, a palpably false plea was taken that the complainant had not informed the OPs regarding the alleged loss and claim had not been registered. As has already been observed in the foregoing para that from the perusal of the "claim file" it is proved that claim had been registered and Mr. P.A. Bhat had been directed on 28-12-94 to make the preliminary survey and submit the report within three months. The Commission has granted sufficient time to the OPs for the production of the final surveyor namely, Kannan & Co. as a witness to prove their assertion that Mr. Parveen Aggarwal of Kannan & Co. was not their duly appointed surveyor and the Photostat copy of his report placed on the record by the complainant was not genuine. Sufficient opportunities from 01-09-2004 to 26-09-2005 (for more than one year) were granted for that purpose and finally the right was closed. It was the duty of the OPs to produce the preliminary surveyor as well as the final surveyor Mr. Parveen Aggarwal to deface the value of their reports but that legal obligation was not discharged. On the other hand, the complainant after seeking the assistance of the Commission got Syed Irfan Alam, preliminary surveyor summoned as a witness and his report was proved. That report EXP-1 was made the basis for the preparation of final surveyor's report wherein the loss caused to the building has been assessed at Rs. 2,75,739/-. The plea taken by the OPs that claim was time barred automatically fails like the fall of a house of cards. 9. That report EXP-1 was made the basis for the preparation of final surveyor's report wherein the loss caused to the building has been assessed at Rs. 2,75,739/-. The plea taken by the OPs that claim was time barred automatically fails like the fall of a house of cards. 9. The evidence of credible nature has been produced by the complainant and it establishes the fact that his genuine claim was not settled by the OPs by suppression of official record and the concerned officials have tried to hoodwink the Commission by making false and baseless allegation against the complainant that he has filed complaint on the basis of false and fabricated record when in fact their own defence put up herein has been found false and fabricated and against the contents of "official claim file" dealing with the case of the complainant. This case is found of a nature where pot had started calling the kettle as black. The incident is of the intervening night of 11-12-94. It is not understandable why the preliminary surveyor/investigator was not sent on the spot when the appointment of Mr. P.A. Bhat as per the official record had been made on 28-04-94. What were the circumstances and reasons behind causing the delay of a morbid nature from the year 1994 to 2001 (about 7 years) for the non-appointment of preliminary surveyor because Syed Irfan Alam has stated in clear terms that he had submitted his preliminary survey report within three months from the date of his appointment and his report is dated 29-07-2001. The concerned officials of the OPs owe and explanation to their higher ups in the hierarchy for such malafide and oppressive acts. Not only that, such unpardonable behavior of such officials makes them accountable. Public authorities action in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behavior before authorities created under the statute like this Commission or the courts entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. Compensation or damages may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and in a bonafide manner, but when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behavior then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by police authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Harassment of a common man by police authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging. The present case falls in the above stated category of cases and the officials who have dealt with this case cannot go scot free to reimburse the injury caused to the complainant. Hence, we accept the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to reimburse him to the loss caused to his insured building which has been assessed by the loss assessor and surveyor Mr. Parveen Aggarwal to the extent of Rs. 275739/- plus Rs. 80,000/- as loss to the insured household articles, fixtures, furniture, utensils etc. which had insurable interest of Rs. 1.00 lakh and they had been totally destroyed. The surveyor Mr. Parveen Aggarwal has wrongly omitted to assess their loss but after allowing the depreciated value at Rs. 20,000/- we allow the reimbursement upto Rs. 80,000/- as stated above. In this view of the matter, the OPs are directed to reimburse the complainant to the loss suffered by him to the insured building and household articles etc to the extent of Rs. 275739/- plus Rs. 80,000/- which comes to Rs. 355739/- (Rupees three lakh fifty five thousand seven hundred and thirty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of loss till the final payment is made alongwith the litigation expenses quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The payment be made at the first instance by the OPs to the complainant and subsequently the whole amount be recovered from the pay/pension of the delinquent officials who after due inquiry are located and identified to have misconducted. Such compensation/indemnification is for vindicating the strength of law as well as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curbing the social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officials towards their customers. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. The complaint be consigned to records.