G.D. Sharma, J. 1. On 31.5.2002, Mr. Jia Lal Pandita (now dead) filed this complaint under the provisions of J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987,(hereinafter to be referred to as the Act),inter alia, making averments that his insured residential house situated in village Khalhar Sagam, Tehsil Kokarnag was set on fire by some miscreants after his migration to Jammu, which was caused by militancy related violent acts on the minority community of the complainants. Initially the insurance policy was obtained on 5.4.1995 bearing No. 23422/11/96/00029 and was effective from 5.4.1995 to 4.4.1995. The covered risk under the said policy was to the tune of Rs. five lacs. He had abandoned his residence for good in the year 1990. It was fire Policy "B" inclusive of terrorist act. That OP had appointed Mr. Javed Hussain surveyor who had submitted his assessment report but the claim was not settled. The OP despite the service of notice failed to file the written version within the prescribed time limit and their right was waived off by rejecting the application for condoning the delay. The complainant could not appear as his own witness because of old age infirmity and filed the affidavit of his son namely, Raj Nath Pandita. He had already been appointed as attorney by the complainant. The OP challenged the order passed by the Commission in the proceedings in Hon'ble High Court of J&K by invoking the writ jurisdiction. The High Court issued direction in the name of the Commission to receive the written version from the OP on the payment of costs. 2. In the written version the OP showed its ignorance regarding the receipt of information regarding lodging the claim of the alleged loss as well as regarding the appointment of the surveyor namely, Mr. Javed Hussain to assess the loss. That in FIR No. 9/99 of Police Station Dooru, the name of the complainant herein had not figured and in that FIR it was recorded that the complaint had migrated from his native place in the year 1992, whileas contradictory factual plea is taken by the complainant in para 2 of his complaint to the effect that in 1990 he left his abode and was continuously living in Jammu as a migrant. The OP got the information about the alleged loss for the first time on 7.8.2000 and immediately thereafter on 10.8.2001, the claim was repudiated on the basis of being false and fictitious. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings the complainant died on 29.12.2005 and his sons namely, Avtar Krishan Pandita, Raj Nath Pandita and Bushan Lal Pandita were substituted as legal heirs. 4. In order to prove the averments made in the complaint, complainant's son namely, Raj Nath, as attorney holder, led his evidence as well as produced the premium receipts for the year 1996, 1997 and 1998. Letter dated 19.2.1999 written by the Senior Divisional Manager to him has also been placed on the record. The OP was directed to lead its evidence and it filed the affidavits of Dr. H.K. Bhagat and Mr. A.M. Watali. Mr. Watali had turned up for his cross-examination while Dr. H.K. Bhagat did not. His deposition is thus inadmissible in evidence. Heard the arguments. 5. Mr. R.K. Jain, the learned counsel appealing for OP has at the out-set argued that the complaint is not maintainable as information about the incident was made on 7.8.2000 i.e. after five years. OP had not appointed any surveyor but the complainant in connivance with Javed Hussain surveyor prepared a false and fabricated assessment report and himself produced the same in the Commission. Under rules and procedure, the surveyor was required to submit his report before OP. The surveyor was not examined as a witness. The complaint was filed by him on 31.5.2002 and thus is barred by limitation by seven years. In support of his contention, he has cited case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah v. National Insurance Co. (2009) 7 SCC 768 wherein it has been held that cause of action arises from the date of alleged incident. In that case fire in complainant's godown had caused damage to the insured tobacco stocks between the intervening night of 22/23.3.1988 and complaint was filed after more than nine years and that too without any application for condonation of delay. It was held that cause of action began on 23.3.1988 when fire in the godown took place. 6. In rebuttal Mr. P.N. Raina has contended that in letter dated 19.2.1999 written by Sr. Divisional Manager to the deceased-complainant Jialal Pandita, it was conveyed that they were looking into the matter and shall revert on the subject very shortly. It was held that cause of action began on 23.3.1988 when fire in the godown took place. 6. In rebuttal Mr. P.N. Raina has contended that in letter dated 19.2.1999 written by Sr. Divisional Manager to the deceased-complainant Jialal Pandita, it was conveyed that they were looking into the matter and shall revert on the subject very shortly. The complainant had continuously renewed the insurance policy by making payment of premium even after the alleged incident for the year 1997, (vide annexure A-Colly) and for the year 1998/99 vide premium receipt dated 7.4.1998,(annexure AI-Colly), which means the insurance policy had been renewed upto 6.4.1999. The above referred annexure A2 dated 19.2.1999 is prior in time. That the defence put up by the OP to the effect that for the first time OP got information on 7.8.2000 is factually incorrect because its witness Dr. H.K. Bhagat, who is a senior responsible officer, in his affidavit has deposed that the complainant vide registered letter dated 11.5.2000 had laid information about the alleged occurrence. This factual position find support from abovesaid letter dated 19.2.1999, annexure A2, which recites that the claim was under examination. Dr. H.K. Bhagat has also stated in his affidavit that Op vide registered letter dated 11.5.2000 and subsequent registered letter dated 25.8.2000 had contacted Mr. Javed Hussain Surveyor. That vide registered letter dated 10.8.2001 the OP had requested the complainant to provide documentary evidence regarding deputation of Javed Hussain as surveyor but no reply was received from him. That in the registered letter dated 25.8.2000 also mention was made about eliciting information from the complainant. In terms of registered letter dated 10.8.2001 the claim of the complainant was closed as "no liability attaches to the company". In this letter the Divisional Manager has further stated that they received letter of the complainant on 7.8.2001. Regarding the raising of the alleged claim No. 23422/11/95/906335 with it, the Divisional Manager has stated in the letter dated 10.8.2001 "Please note that company has not accepted survey report since this alleged loss has never been reported to the company." It is half statement made by him in the said as there is no specific denial to the effect that survey report was never received. He has also brought to the notice of the Commission receipt issued by the Trade World Courier on 22.5.1999 in favour of Jialal Pandita (deceased complainant) which shows that on 24.5.1999 letter was sent by him to Javed Hussain surveyor at his Srinagar address. Surveyor's report shows that he had sent his report bearing No. OIF/35/99010133 regarding claim No. 23422/l/95/906335 in respect of insured the house of the deceased complainant to the OP branch office Anantnag. In this report he has mentioned about instruction dated 16.12.1995 received by him from OP to make assessment and he visited the premises on 18.12.1995 to conduct the survey. At page No. 2 of his report he has mentioned that the house had been extensively destroyed and raised to ground. The pertinent findings are:- "Some portion of the walls of ground floor and 1st floor were seen corrected but were rendered unsafe and can collapse at any time. Walls therefore are to be demolished and reconstructed afresh. Loss to the building in our opinion is total loss." 7. He has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.450754/-. He has also referred to letter of AMS Consultants written to SSP Anantnag wherein after considering FIR No.9/99 P.S. Duroo, registered in connection with the fire loss to the house of Nandlal Pandita, R/O Kandikote Khalhar and found therein that house of the deceased-complainant had also gutted. SSP Anantnag in response to the said letter wrote to SHO Kokarnag who registered case under FIR NO. 436/2001 U/S 436 RPC confirming therein that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the month of May 1990 and that the deceased complainant had migrated with his family in the year 1995. The SSP vide his letter dated 20.3.2002 informed the complainant that his case has been closed as untraced. Period of limitation starts from the date of repudiation and record shows that it was repudiated vide letter dated 10.8.2001 and complaint was filed on 31.5.2002, which means within one year. Thus it cannot be said that the complaint is time barred. 8. We have considered the respective contentions of counsel appearing for the parties and from the documentary evidence, which is supported by oral evidence, it gets established that the house of the deceased-complainant was gutted in fire in the year 1995 and the insured claim was never repudiated before 10.8.2001. 8. We have considered the respective contentions of counsel appearing for the parties and from the documentary evidence, which is supported by oral evidence, it gets established that the house of the deceased-complainant was gutted in fire in the year 1995 and the insured claim was never repudiated before 10.8.2001. On facts it is held that the complaint was filed within time. The law cited by Mr. R.K. Jain advocate has no application to the facts of the case. There is no denial to the fact that the gutted house was not covered under insurance policy in question at that time. It is also established that the insurance policy was continuously being renewed upto 9.4.1999 and letter dated 19.2.1999 annexure A2 written by Sr. Divisional Manager to the deceased complainant shows that his case was under consideration. The admission made by Mr. H.K. Bhagat in his affidavit shows that they had written registered letter on 11.5.2002 to Javed Hussain surveyor and subsequent two letters were written on 25.8.2000 and 10.8.2001, requesting the deceased to provide necessary documentary evidence regarding deputation of Javed Hussain because claim number mentioned in the self-styled report submitted by Javed Hussain was not found in the record but no reply was received. This fact also shows that the claim was alive on 11.5.2000 as well as on 25.8.2000. It was the duty of OP to produce Javed Hussain surveyor in the witness box to prove the fact that he was not deputed by OP at any point of time to assess the loss and his report was false and fictitious because he was a licence holder and working under the administrative control of OP but they did not discharge that obligation towards the discharge of their official functions. Insurance record was also with the OP and Javed Hussain should have been confronted with official record. How a migrant could secure the presence of the said surveyor to prove the fact of his appointment. There is no evidence on record to show that OP has taken any disciplinary action against the said surveyor for submission of alleged assessment report which was filed by the deceased complainant during the course of proceedings. All these attending circumstance show that his report has credibility. Police record has also proved that the house of the deceased-complainant had been set ablaze by miscreants in the year 1995. 9. All these attending circumstance show that his report has credibility. Police record has also proved that the house of the deceased-complainant had been set ablaze by miscreants in the year 1995. 9. In the proceedings before the Consumer Fora mere preponderance of possibility suggests that a fact is said to be proved when the forum either believes that it exists or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The Fora created under the Act are not fettered or bound by the technical rules contained in the Evidence Act. What is required is that they must conduct themselves in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. They should follow the procedure laid down under sec. 11 of the Act. Applying the abovesaid yardstick to the facts and circumstances of this case it is held beyond any manner of doubt that complainants have proved their case regarding settlement of their genuine claim by the OP, which was not settled but repudiated and it amounts to deficiency in rendering service. The complaint is accordingly allowed and direction is issued to the OP to reimburse the complainants in equal shares to the extent of Rs. 450754/- alongwith interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of occurrence, till final payment is made. Complainants are also entitled to litigation expenses in the amount of Rs.6000/-. The complaint is consigned to records.