Per: Virender Singh, J. 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as `the appellant’), being aggrieved of order/award dated 06.01.2003 passed by J&K State Consumers Protection Commission, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as `State Commission’) whereby directing the appellant to pay Rs.4,97,247/- with 9% interest to the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as `complainant’), has preferred the instant appeal, which already stands admitted after condoning the delay. Execution of the award stands stayed during the pendency of the appeal and a sum of Rs.1,45,175/- has also been released in favour of the complainant. 2. Flashback of the facts, in brief, is that the complainant being a migrant from Kashmir had got his residential building situate at Fatehpora, Bungam, District Anantnag (Kashmir) insured with the .appellant for an amount of Rs.6 lacs. It was gutted in fire by the militants on the night intervening 2nd/ 3rd of August, 1999. An information was lodged with the concerned police about the incident, upon which, a formal FIR was registered under Section 436 R.P.C. with Police Station Anantnag. The complainant raised the claim with the appellant, upon which, Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., was appointed to assess the loss, which was assessed to the tune of Rs.4,97,247/-. He submitted his report to this effect with the appellant. When the matter was not settled by the appellant for a considerable period, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission in July, 2001 asking for the entire insured amount which was opposed on the ground that he was not entitled to any compensation as he himself had hired certain persons to set his house ablaze to manage compensation. The appellant relied upon the report of one Jehlum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., dated 11.08.2001. However, the appellant appointed another Surveyor namely Omkar Pajnu to re-assess the loss, who, ultimately submitted his report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.1,45,135/-. The State Commission did not agree with the stand taken by the appellant and ultimately accepted the first report submitted by Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., and directed the appellant to pay Rs.4,97,247/- alongwith interest. 3. We have heard Mrs. Wattali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent. The entire record of the State Commission called by us has also been perused minutely being the Court of First Appeal. 4. Mrs. 3. We have heard Mrs. Wattali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent. The entire record of the State Commission called by us has also been perused minutely being the Court of First Appeal. 4. Mrs. Wattali submits that in case the Court is not in agreement with her with regard to the fact that the complainant himself had engaged certain persons to set his house on fire so as to get his claim indemnified as is the stand of the appellant throughout, he at least is not entitled to an amount of Rs.4,97,247/- as the report received from Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., cannot be relied upon being unsigned. It cannot be read into evidence. In support of her contentions, she relies upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled `Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen’ AIR 1965 Supreme Court 155 and `Noor Jahan Begum v. Abrar Ahmad Khan’ AIR 1982 Allahabad 149. She goes on to submit that although the complainant was duly informed by the appellant about the report submitted by Jehlum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., yet in all fairness, another Surveyor namely Omkar Pajnu was deputed to make another survey in which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,45,135/-. The contention of Mrs. Wattali is that there was no deficiency of service on the part of appellant as it made all attempts to give just compensation to the complainant and an exorbitant amount has now been awarded by the State Commission relying on an unsigned report of a surveyor. 5. Mrs. Wattali then contends that all the facts were brought before State Commission by adducing evidence, in which even the Divisional Manager representing the Company had also tendered his affidavit in the shape of evidence. She has read over the evidence of that official. Other evidence on record, which she feels relevant, has also been read over to us. Prayer made is for setting aside the impugned award in toto or in the alternative to be modified to the extent that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,135/- only, the loss assessed in the second report and not Rs.4,97,247/- as stated in the report of Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd. 6. Mr. Dhar opposes the submissions of Mrs. Mr. Dhar opposes the submissions of Mrs. Wattali vehemently submitting that there being no infirmity in the impugned award of the State Commission on any count, deserves to be upheld. 7. What calls for our appreciation is, whether the first surveyor report submitted by Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., though unsigned, has been rightly taken into consideration by the State Commission while directing the appellant to pay the amount referred to in it or it should not have been given any weightage at all being inadmissible in evidence as submitted by Mrs. Wattali. 8. No doubt, the report submitted by Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., is unsigned, but in our considered view, it will not loose its effect at all for a very simple reason that Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., was deputed by the appellant only to assess the loss caused on account of fire. This report was prepared on 21.08.2000. Amar Nath, Divisional Manager of the Company, when stepped into the witness box, in para 5 of his affidavit, refers to this report. It is annexed also with the affidavit. In the said affidavit, another report prepared by one Jhelum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., dated 11.08.2001 is also annexed. This is after one year of the preparation of the report by Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd. In the second report prepared by Jehlum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., the claim of the complainant has been treated as `No Claim’ for the reason that the complainant had hired certain local people to accomplish the job of burning his house to claim compensation. The complainant was, however, not made aware of handing over the case to Jehlum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., before filing the complaint. It is brought to his notice subsequently through Letter dated 29.08.2001 which is available on the record. We find no justification for consuming one year by the appellant in getting the matter investigated by another investigating agency. It is also not understandable that in case the report submitted by Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., was unsigned, why the concerned person was not asked to sign the said report. After all Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., was deputed by the appellant only and none else. Therefore, the only inference, which can comfortably be drawn, is that the first report submitted by Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., was not favouring the appellant and, therefore, it was kept as it is. After all Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., was deputed by the appellant only and none else. Therefore, the only inference, which can comfortably be drawn, is that the first report submitted by Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., was not favouring the appellant and, therefore, it was kept as it is. The matter was got reinvestigated from another investigating agency namely Jehlum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., after one year and thereafter by another surveyor namely Mr. Omkar Pajnu. Had the appellant been sure about the fact that it was complainant’s-mischief as pointed out by Jehlum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd., there was no need to engage the third surveyor and the appellant could stick to one specific stand of `No claim’. 9. While perusing the record of the State Commission, we have noticed one letter dated 26.06.2001 written by Divisional Manager to the complainant in which it is stated that the assessment made by the earlier surveyor is on higher side keeping in view the construction and dimension of the building as depicted in the photographs taken by the surveyor namely Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., and therefore, one Omkar Pajnu- Senior Civil Engineer is deputed to review the assessment. This goes to show that the appellant had not ignored the report Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd., being unsigned. It was not considered as the loss assessed in it was on higher side, which was not acceptable to the appellant. Therefore, the plea now taken that it being unsigned document should not be taken into account being inadmissible, cannot be accepted at all. In fact, the appellant had been dilly dallying the matter for one reason or the other. 10. The judgments relied upon by Mrs. Wattali do not advance the case of the appellant at all as they are distinguishable on facts. In the said judgments, strict principles of Indian Evidence Act have been adhered to, whereas the dispute raised by a consumer under the Consumers Protection Act are decided summarily by the quasi judicial forum observing the principle of natural justice taking into account imperfection or shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature or manner of the service, which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The Act has been enacted to promote and protect the rights and interest of the consumers, and to provide speedy and simple redressal of their grievances. It is consumer friendly Act and, therefore, hyper technical aspect with regard to proof of evidence does not apply to it strictly. The procedure provided in the Act itself talks of disposal of the complaint summarily. Otherwise, it will not only lead to lingering on the proceedings but also out way the substantial justice. This is not the spirit of the Act at all. 11. We, after rescanning the entire evidence available on record, are of the considered view that the State Commission has rightly rejected the opposition raised by the appellant on the aforesaid aspect and directed the company to pay Rs.4,97,247/- as assessed by their own surveyor namely Saraf Investigators Pvt. Ltd. We, consequently, uphold the view so taken. 12. Faced with this situation, Mrs. Wattali states that the interest component @ 9% as awarded by the State Commission is on higher side and the same may be reduced reasonably, to which, learned counsel for the complainant has raised serious opposition. However, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, and the fact that a sum of Rs.1,45,135/- has already been released as part payment in favour of the complainant, ends of justice would be adequately met, if the interest @ 9% per annum already awarded by the State Commission is reduced to 7% per annum. Ordered accordingly. 13. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeal at hand is dismissed being devoid of any merit in it except with modification in the interest part as indicated hereinabove. The complainant shall now be entitled to the balance amount lying with the Registrar Judicial of this Court alongwith interest at the rate as indicated hereinabove upto the stage of depositing the entire awarded amount by the appellant pursuant to the direction of this Court. Thereafter, his entitlement to the interest would be at the scheduled rate to be paid by the Bank on F.D.R. 14. Registrar Judicial to calculate the interest part only and if any excess amount is received from the appellant-company, the same shall be returned to it after the expiry of statutory period of appeal.