ORDER Hon'ble Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral) This is insurer's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 113 of 2005. By the order impugned, the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint, directing the opposite party- appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,09,560/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and also to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 1,500/- 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the complainant is running a business under the name and style of M/s Manoj Traders. The complainant had got the wooden stock lying in his premises insured with the opposite party for the period from 26.04.2005 to 25.07.2005. In the night of 12/13.06.2005, the stock of wood lying in the premises of the complainant caught fire, which was immediately informed to the Fire Brigade and the fire was extinguished about 3 hours. At the time of fire, wooden stock worth Rs. 6,57,498/- was lying in the godown, out of which stock worth Rs. 2,11,158/- got burnt. The information regarding fire was given to the insurance company. The surveyor of the insurance company assessed loss of Rs. 7,840/-. The complainant received a letter dated 24.06.2005 from the insurance company, wherein it was mentioned that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,840/- and on the basis of the excess clause, the claim has been closed as No Claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that after detailed investigation, it was found that the complainant has sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 69,290/-, out of which loss of Rs. 7,840/- only was covered under the policy and since as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the company is not liable to indemnify the loss below Rs. 10,000/- and hence the claim was repudiated as NO CLAIM. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 10.08.2006 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. 10,000/- and hence the claim was repudiated as NO CLAIM. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 10.08.2006 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The policy of insurance is on record, wherein the description of risk has been mentioned as "stock of all type of timber, like wooden planks, ballies and bamboo items." It has also been mentioned that the "wooden stock in open" is covered under the policy. Thus, it can not be said that the loss was not covered under the policy. The insurance company has insured all types of timber like wooden planks, ballies and bamboo items kept in open and now the insurance company can not say that all types of timber were not insured under the policy. Even otherwise, if there is any ambiguity in the policy, the same will be interpreted for the benefit of the insured. The District Forum has considered the said fact and has rightly held that the loss was covered under the policy. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Fire Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,58,000/-. The surveyor appointed by the insurance company has not submitted an exhaustive report and has simply stated that the estimate of loss submitted by the insured appears to be on the higher side. The complainant has alleged that he has sustained the loss of Rs. 2,11,158/ . The District Forum has taken the loss in respect of eucalyptus balli and eucalyptus fanti for total sum of Rs. 1,09,560/- and has awarded the said sum to the complainant together with interest and cost, as stated above. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not require any interference and the consumer complaint has rightly been allowed. This, the appeal filed by the insurance company being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.