G.D. Sharma, J. 1. This complaint was filed by the complainant on 29.1.2001 with the allegations that he had been obtaining "householders insurance Policy" in respect of the insured building from the OP continuously for the last one decade. That the insurance policy No. 53199 is relevant policy for the decision of the present complaint. It was obtained on 18.2.1999 and was in force upto 17.2.2000. The fire risk for the double storeyed building described in the policy had a covering risk of Rs. 8.00 lacs and Rs. 5.00 lacs for household articles. Besides that, one Oscar colour T.V. had also insured cover risk of Rs. 20,000/-. The case of the complainant is that during the intervening night of 29/30.12.1999, the insured building alongwith household articles and the T.V. got gutted in fire, which broke out because of electric short-circuiting. On the next day i.e. 30.12.1999 the OP was informed and report of the incident was also lodged in the concerned police station. Fire brigade was also informed immediately. The preliminary surveyor, Sh. S. Peerzada, submitted his report on 7.1.2000 wherein the details of loss was tentatively assessed at Rs. 7.00 lacs. The claim fell within the competence of Regional office of the OP and as such was referred for settlement. Accordingly, Mr. Rajan Sharda surveyor from Chandigarh was deputed to assess the loss, who visited the spot on 10.1.2000. The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,18000/- after considering the documents submitted by the complainant and submitted his final report to the OP in the month of March 2000. Till ending August 2000, the claim was not settled and on 15.9.2000, letter was sent to the OP for settling the claim. When the claim was not settled, final notice dated 10.12.2000 was sent, which is annexure C8 on the record. Thereafter the complaint was filed in the Commission wherein following reliefs have been claimed: - 1. Rs. 24, 02734/- as the actual loss suffered by the complainant; 2. Rs. 368990.20 as interest @ 20% P.A.; 3. Rs. One lac for physical and mental torture; 4. Litigation charges Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 28,90,743.20 P. 2. In the given version preliminary objections have been raised that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 13.00 lacs only which is the risk covered under the policy. Rs. 368990.20 as interest @ 20% P.A.; 3. Rs. One lac for physical and mental torture; 4. Litigation charges Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 28,90,743.20 P. 2. In the given version preliminary objections have been raised that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 13.00 lacs only which is the risk covered under the policy. It is also stated hat the original insurance policy was not produced and it seems to be a case of forgery and misrepresentation. Regarding the surveyor's report it has been pleaded that it suffers from legal infirmity because he had allowed the plinth value of the building in his report. 3. It is noted here that during the pendency of the complaint on the application made by the complainant on 02-05-2001, the OP was directed to deposit the admitted liability in the sum of Rs. 7,39,321/-. The amount was deposited and disbursed to the complainant on 3.6.2001. 4. In support of the complaint the complainant has appeared himself as a witness and the OP has examined Sh. M.K. Raina Branch Manager as a witness. 5. The complainant in his evidence has supported his complaint and in the cross-examination has admitted that he had been getting his house and household articles insured from the OP for the last ten years; that all record concerning the insurance policy was destroyed in the fire. The ground floor was also damaged. He has no knowledge about making of any deductions by the OP regarding the insurance of the ground floor. 6. Sh. M.K. Raina has deposed in his affidavit that he was well versed with the facts of the case he had scrutinized the record and processed the case of the complainant; that he had found that the surveyor had not included the value of the plinth foundation in the amount of value and therefore the loss assessed by him had gone on higher side. In his cross-examination he has admitted that before he deposed on affidavit, he had not seen the record of the case as well as the report of the surveyor because he remembered each and everything concerning the case. He has also stated that the electric fittings of the building were not separately covered under the insurance policy. In his cross-examination he has admitted that before he deposed on affidavit, he had not seen the record of the case as well as the report of the surveyor because he remembered each and everything concerning the case. He has also stated that the electric fittings of the building were not separately covered under the insurance policy. At his request, he was granted time to scrutinize the record and was finally cross-examined on 14.7.2003 when he stated that the surveyor had assessed the loss for the complete building and excluded the plinth and the foundation. 7. Mr. N.H. Khuroo, learned counsel for the OP has argued that while applying the average (sic) thereunder value of the insured claim the appellant is entitled only to the tune of Rs. 5.60 lacs whereas already he has received an amount of Rs. 7,39,321/-. According to him the report submitted by the surveyor Mr. Rajan Sharda, dated 15.6.2000, is defective because he has given damages of the plinth area to which the appellant was not entitled. In order to support his argument he has contended that the complainant has himself shown the actual loss to the insured building and the household articles in the sum of Rs. 24,02,734/- and the abovesaid actual loss, calculated by applying the average clause, should have been in the sum of Rs. 5.60 lacs only. 8. The arguments advanced by Mr. Khuroo, though are of specious nature yet they are devoid of any legal force and contrary to the facts of the case. He is making out a new case out side the pleading by pressing in force innovative type of argument without caring about the admission which Mr. M.K. Raina has made on oath as a witness of the OP. Mr. M.K. Raina after gathering here and there as well as blowing hot and could in the same breath had admitted that "the surveyor has not assessed the loss for the complete building but included the plinth and foundation. The ground floor exists only when the plinth is there." The surveyor Mr. Rajan Sharda, who is an independent expert and was deputed from the head officer of the OP, in his report at page 3 has stated that on spot he had found the first floor as completely damaged, including the flooring which needed to be rebuilt. The ground floor exists only when the plinth is there." The surveyor Mr. Rajan Sharda, who is an independent expert and was deputed from the head officer of the OP, in his report at page 3 has stated that on spot he had found the first floor as completely damaged, including the flooring which needed to be rebuilt. In a most scientific and reasonable manner he has assessed the loss of the insured building as well as the household articles to the tune of Rs. 918867/- as total loss. He had even taken the samples of the burnt pieces of shawls and showed it to the local shopkeepers who had confirmed that the shawls were made of superior quality of pashmina. For the insured building he had deducted depreciation as well as salvage for bricks, wood and sheets etc. The report does not make any mention that separately he had given any assessment in favour of the complainant for the plinth of the building. The argument advanced by Mr. Khuroo, advocate in no way thus advances the case of the OP and it is found devoid of any legal force. 9. In view of the discussion made above, we accept the loss assessed by Mr. Rajan sharda surveyor at Rs. 9,18,867/- and direct the OP to make the payment of the difference of the balance amount than already received by him in the amount of Rs. 7,39,321/- (on 13.6.2001) alongwith interest thereon @ 9 P.A. from the date of incident till its realization. The OP is also directed to bear the cost of litigation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. File be consigned to records.