Per Justice G.D.Sharma 1. The complainant is a Small Scale Industrial Unit which manufactures wooden joints and also supplies timber to its customers. The nature of the business requires stocking of timber both un-sawn and sawn, finished and unfinished in its premises which is located in the locality known as "Arya Samaj Gali, Kathua". The said stocks in trade and the machinery lying in the business premises of the complainant had insurable cover under Policy no. 11/02/00003 issued by the OP and was valid from 17.05.2001 to 16.05.2002. The insurance risk covered was up to a limit of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs), It is alleged that on the night of September 13, 2001, fire broke out in the business premises of the complainant and huge stock of timber and the machinery were damaged beyond repairs. The Fire Brigade personnel had tried to extinguish the fire but could not save the loss. Divisional Fire Officer, District Kathua issued certificate dated 06.10.2001 regarding the fire incident. The incident was reported in the Police Station Kathua, wherein FIR No. 229 of 2001 was registered on 14.09.2001 for the commission of offence falling under section 436 RPC. The complainant furnished the quantum of estimated loss to the OP after assessing it on the basis of purchased value and market price. OP appointed the surveyor namely, U.K.Handoo who, it is alleged, in an arbitrary manner and without associating the complainant assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 1,88,832/-against the estimated loss of Rs. 5,78,000/-. The above stated stocks of trade had insured cover of Rs. 7,50,000/- whileas, machinery had a cover of risk to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. Vide their letter dated 26.03.2002, OP made an offer to the complainant to accept the meager amount assessed at Rs. 1,88,832/- which was not commensurate with the actual loss suffered by him. The assessment of loss made by Mr. U.K Handob surveyor was arbitrary and irrational. He had not associated the complainant in the process of making assessment and without visiting the spot had prepared lop-sided report. The surveyor had refused to examine the statement of accounts and stock register including all other relevant documentary evidence. He had not ascertained the market value. U.K Handob surveyor was arbitrary and irrational. He had not associated the complainant in the process of making assessment and without visiting the spot had prepared lop-sided report. The surveyor had refused to examine the statement of accounts and stock register including all other relevant documentary evidence. He had not ascertained the market value. The complainant had made request to the OP that the loss was not assessed in a fair manner and it was the duty of the OP to appoint another surveyor which request was ignored. The relief claimed by the complainant is the reimbursement of the actual loss to the tune of Rs. 5,78,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12 % p.a and compensation also for the delayed payment. 2. In the written version, OP has admitted the insurance cover qua all kinds of timber including stocks, wood furnished and unfurnished, wooden furniture etc. as well as of the machinery in the form of band saw, electric motor etc. however, the claim which had been put up by the complainant to the extent of Rs. 5,78,000/- is stated to have been made on surmises and conjectures. It is also stated that surveyor Mr. U.K.Handoo was appointed on 14.09.2001 and he wrote letter dated 05.11.2001 to the complainant to furnish information/documents etc. On 19.11.2001, OP wrote a letter to the said surveyor to submit his report within seven days which request was repeated on 06.12.2001. Finally, on 14.12.2001, the surveyor submitted his report dated 11.12.2001 wherein the loss assessed was to the tune of Rs. 1,88,832/. It was stated that fire had engulfed mainly the finished stocks lying therein and the adjoining stocks and that the stocks lying in the other sheds and in the compound remained undamaged. The undamaged and partially damaged stocks were assessed of the value of Rs. 3,49,290/-. The stock was purchased by the complainant during the month of August 2001 vide bill no. 373, dated 03.08.2001 and the damage to the purchased items was allowed only to the extent of Rs. 25% which included labour charges etc. The surveyor had contacted a "Mistry" that had been engaged by the complainant and his name was Charandas who helped the surveyor to make the assessment. 3. In support of the complaint, the complainant deposed on affidavit and was cross examined by the OP. 25% which included labour charges etc. The surveyor had contacted a "Mistry" that had been engaged by the complainant and his name was Charandas who helped the surveyor to make the assessment. 3. In support of the complaint, the complainant deposed on affidavit and was cross examined by the OP. He also produced the evidence of his witness Yashpal Singh on affidavit who too was cross examined by the OP. Similarly, the evidence of witness Gangadhar Sharma was also produced. Mr. Balwinder Singh. Branch Manager, Kathua of the OP has appeared as a witness for the OP. Mr. U.K.Handoo surveyor also deposed on affidavit in favour of the OP and he was cross-examined by the complainant. 4. The complainant in his evidence has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and further stated that vide his letter dated 16.01.2002 (annexure `C') addressed to OP, he had pointed out that the complainant was not taken into confidence before finalizing the surveyor's report but no action was taken on his letter. The surveyor has prepared his report on the basis of no evidence, without checking the facts and at the back of the complainant. The stocks in trade have been under-valued without taking the market value into account. The surveyor had refused to examine the stock register and other relevant record which the complainant had produced before him. The surveyor had got the assistance of one Charandas "mistry" stating to be an expert, who is not known to the complainant. That complainant vide bill no. 373dated 03.08.2002 had purchased C-Class rotten timber but the surveyor has allowed only 25% as loss for the damage caused to it. The purchase bill had established that it was C-Class rotten timber and once burnt how it remained of any value. The timber is a perishable commodity and the surveyor without any basis has valued the undamaged stocks at Rs. 3,58,551/-. The practice is that burnt timber to the extent of 50% or even 25% as a whole cannot be used for the manufacture of doors and windows etc. He has relied upon annexure `G'. That vide bill no. 373 dated 03.08.2001 the purchase value of the timber was of Rs. 2,11,325/- whereas, the surveyor has valued it in his report at Rs. 2,9,220. He has relied upon annexure `G'. That vide bill no. 373 dated 03.08.2001 the purchase value of the timber was of Rs. 2,11,325/- whereas, the surveyor has valued it in his report at Rs. 2,9,220. That after valuing the partially damaged stocks of the nature of 75% further deduction on account of salvage was not permissible but the surveyor has done so. The complainant had claimed Rs. 5.78.000/- only after valuing the partially damaged stocks at 25% of its original value whereas, the surveyor has valued the partially damaged stocks at 75% of the original price which was not justified because of the very nature of the trade. Partially damaged timber; cannot be used for any manufacturing purposes. The surveyor had ignored the damage of the machinery which was duly supported by vouchers dated 20, 22, 24 and 25th of September 2001 and in an arbitrary manner has only allowed Rs. 8,014/- as against the claim of 50,000/-. He has produced on record the photographs of the burnt timber which is in the form of a heap of char-coal and burnt pieces of timber which were being picked up by the public for domestic use. His testimony has been supported by the evidence of his witness Yashpal Singh accountant who has stated that no inventory was made of any article by the surveyor in his presence. He has been continuously working as an employee of the complainant for the last ten years. That the surveyor had associated `mistry' Charandas to evaluate the loss who was not known to the complainant. Gangadhar Sharma witness of the complainant has stated that the timber depot of the complainant was burnt due to fire during the night of 13th of September 2001 and on the next day, when he visited the spot he saw the timber in burnt condition reduced to char-coal. The people were picking up the burnt timber to be used as char coal or fire wood. The entire stock had been burnt and few logs of timber were found badly burnt and could not be used for manufacturing/furniture or putting up for sale purpose. He also deals in the timber trade and knows the potential of timber market. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Branch Manager, has appeared as the witness of the OP and stated that on 14.09.2001, Mr. U.K.Handoo was appointed as a surveyor. He also deals in the timber trade and knows the potential of timber market. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Branch Manager, has appeared as the witness of the OP and stated that on 14.09.2001, Mr. U.K.Handoo was appointed as a surveyor. He admitted that complainant had furnished the details of assessed loss in the sum of Rs. 5,78,000/- but according to him it had no basis and the surveyor vide his report dated 11.12.2001 has rightly assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,88,832/-. The request was made to the complainant to sign the consent letter for the acceptance of that amount but he had refused to do so. In cross examination, he admitted that OP had failed to appoint any other surveyor despite the fact that the complainant had assessed the amount in his report. He shows his ignorance whether enquiries for mis-conduct are pending against Mr. U.K.Handoo or not. He has stated that vide his letter dated 05.02.2001; addressed to the complainant he had demanded information/documents on account of the loss suffered by him. Even the request had been made to submit stock register and sale bills but the complainant did not fulfill all the formalities. That he had been continuously receiving letters from the OP and in order to show compliance to them, on 24.02.2001, he finally submitted his survey report dated 11.12.2001 to the OP. He has further stated that on 13.07.2001, he took the photographs of the spot position and they are on the record. That he applied the value of undamaged stocks as per the existing value during the year 1999-2000 after making the inquiries from various firms who are in the same trade. He had taken help of `mistry' Charandas for making the assessment who resides in New Plots, Jammu. He admitted that on 27.12.2001; OP had written him a letter about the representation made by the complainant wherein the latter had disagreed on the value of the assessed loss. That he had prepared the inventory of the undamaged and partially damaged stocks in the presence of the complainant as well as in the presence of independent persons who were connected with the trade. In cross examination, he deposed that his appointment as a surveyor was made telephonically on the same day. He also admitted that C-Class timber can be used only as fire wood. In cross examination, he deposed that his appointment as a surveyor was made telephonically on the same day. He also admitted that C-Class timber can be used only as fire wood. According to him, he had verified the prices of the timber from M/S Durga Saw Mills and Trikuta Saw Timber and had got the written confirmation regarding the market price from those Saw Mills but could not produce any document in support of those assertions. His explanation was that he would produce them at a later stage. He admitted that he is an accused facing trial before the learned Anti-corruption court. He denies that loss was not assessed by him in the presence of the complainant. He also denies that he had demanded any bribe from the complainant. He could not give full particulars of the Saw Mills where above said Charan Dass `Mistry' had acquired his professional skill. 5. Heard the arguments. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has in her arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and in order to deprive support has referred the evidence of complainant's witness. She has vehemently contended that the survey report of the surveyor Mr. U.K.Handoo is of highly doubtful nature as he never visited the spot for making any inventory. That he had not associated the complainant for making the assessment of the loss and he did not examine any relevant record. That complainant vide his letter dated 16.01.2002, had brought to the notice of the OP the biased approach of the surveyor Mr. U.K.Handoo and annexed with that letter a list of loss of undamaged stocks lying in the business premises valuing Rs. 1,72,896/- but no action was taken on that letter. It was the bounden duty of the OP to give a finding on the allegations which were made in that letter. The complainant had established a case for the appointment of a fresh independent surveyor but that was not done. She has shown the attached photographs prepared by the surveyor regarding the alleged damage which according to her were taken clandestinely at the back of the complainant and pertained to that period when the complainant had re-started his fresh business. The complainant had established a case for the appointment of a fresh independent surveyor but that was not done. She has shown the attached photographs prepared by the surveyor regarding the alleged damage which according to her were taken clandestinely at the back of the complainant and pertained to that period when the complainant had re-started his fresh business. According to her, the photographs of the incident which have been produced by the complainant are the real ones and they show the extent of the damage cause to the insured stocks in trade. The learned counsel appearing for the OP has contended in rebuttal that the surveyor has assessed the loss in a most fair manner and the complainant had not co-operated with him. That the OP is always prepared to make the payment of the assessed amount and there is no deficiency in rendering service. 7. We have considered the respective contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. We find that the assessment report made by the surveyor is of highly doubtful nature. He is not in a position to explain how one `mistry' Charandas was associated by him for making the assessment of loss when he could not furnish his full particulars about the professional expertise. In the similar way, his alleged consultation process carried with professional Saw Mill owners of "Durga Saw Mills' and `Trikuta Saw Timber' is found to be a false ploy employed to defeat the genuine claim of the complainant because he could not produce any corroborative proof although in cross-examination he had stated that he would produce the same alongwith the full particulars of their business premises. Further more in his deposition he had stated that the complainant had not furnished him any documents but he contradicts himself in his survey report wherein at page 3 under heading no. 8 "Books of Accounts/Records" he has stated that insured (complainant) is maintaining books of accounts. That the insured had produced trading, profit and loss account and balance sheet as on 05.09.2001. The books of accounts for the period 01.04.2001 to 05.09.2001 were found maintained. The accounts with effect from 06.09.2001 upto the date of loss viz. 13.09.2001 were not produced as the insured (complainant) had stated before him that there was no transaction during that period. Similarly, under heading no. The books of accounts for the period 01.04.2001 to 05.09.2001 were found maintained. The accounts with effect from 06.09.2001 upto the date of loss viz. 13.09.2001 were not produced as the insured (complainant) had stated before him that there was no transaction during that period. Similarly, under heading no. 9 which is stated "Survey of the loss", he has stated that loss was surveyed by him on 14.09.2001 in the presence of the insured. In the backdrop of above stated admissions made by him, there exists a very small sign of the burnt stocks on the spot. Wherefrom, the fresh stocks of timber came in existence in his submitted photographs within few days from the date of occurrence? Also why the photographs of the spot position produced by the complainant are at great variance from his photographs? Again under heading no. 11 "Basis of Assessment", he admitted that stocks were assessed on the basis of physical inventory of the stocks made by him but his report does not make any mention of that record. At page 2 of his affidavit he has stated that he had taken the photographs on spot on 13.07.2001 which is self-contradictory because the loss had occurred two months thereafter i.e. during the night of 13.09.2001. The complainant's clear stand is that the surveyor had not associated him while preparing the report and that his written complaint against him vide annexure `C' (dated 16.01.2001) accompanied with position of undamaged stock as on 14.09.2001 has not been addressed either by the OP or by the surveyor by making the mention of that report in the survey report. The survey report prepared by Mr. Handoo surveyor on its face seems to be a sham and fabricated document. On the contrary there is preponderance of cogent and convincing evidence on the record that complainant had suffered the loss to the extent of Rs. 5,78,000/-. The surveyor has not explained how he has ignored the purchase of bills regarding the machinery and C-Class timber. From the above made discussion, it is proved that OP has failed to settle the genuine claim of the complainant when he had in a reasonable manner raised the same within time and pointed out the mischief done to him. His assertion regarding the extent of actual loss suffered by him has to be accepted in the absence of any evidence produced in rebuttal. His assertion regarding the extent of actual loss suffered by him has to be accepted in the absence of any evidence produced in rebuttal. Hence, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to indemnify him for the loss suffered by him to the extent of Rs. 5,78,000/- (Rupees Five lacs Seventy Eight thousand) alongwith interest at the rate of 8% p.a from the date of filing the complaint till the final realization. The cost of litigation is awarded in the sum of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand). The complaint is consigned to records.