ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): These two appeals, one by the complainant and another by the insurance company, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arise out of the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 171 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties – insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which the complainant was also held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order passed by the District Forum, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is running a shop of grocery and daily need items under the name and style of Aggarwal Provision Store, of which he is a proprietor. The complainant has got his shop insured with the opposite parties – Reliance General Insurance Company Limited under Reliance Shopkeeper’s Package Insurance Policy for assured sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the period from 20.04.2010 to 19.04.2011. It was alleged that even after receiving the amount of premium and getting the shop insured, the insurance policy was not issued to the complainant. However, during the currency of the insurance policy, on 23.04.2010 at 11:30 p.m., fire broke out in the insured shop on account of short circuit in electricity wires. The fire was got extinguished with the help of fire brigade authorities. It was alleged that in the said fire, goods worth Rs. 10,00,000/- lying in the shop were damaged. The intimation of the fire was sent to the police through fax message. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company. The insurance company sent insurance policy to the complainant through e-mail, wherein the address of the insured shop was incorrectly mentioned. The complainant sent letters to the insurance company for correcting the address of the insured shop in the insurance policy, but to no avail. On 18.05.2010, the surveyor of the insurance company visited the site and made necessary survey, but still the claim of the complainant was not settled by the insurance company. The complainant sent letters to the insurance company for correcting the address of the insured shop in the insurance policy, but to no avail. On 18.05.2010, the surveyor of the insurance company visited the site and made necessary survey, but still the claim of the complainant was not settled by the insurance company. Later on, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that as per the insurance policy, the shop of the complainant was situated at Gurgaon and the shop situated at Dehradun was not covered under the policy and that the surveyor could not assess the loss because the complainant did not submit any register regarding sale and purchase of the goods kept in the shop. Thereafter alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the policy in question covered the shop situated at Gurgaon; that the intimation with regard to the fire was given to the insurance company on 11.05.2010, i.e., after a period of 18 days’ from the date of the occurrence of fire, which took place on 23.04.2010; that the surveyor appointed by the insurance company could not assess the loss because the complainant did not submit any record with regard to sale and purchase of the goods kept in the shop; that the claim was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 08.11.2012 in the above manner. Dissatisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 186 of 2012 for enhancement and whereas, aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed First Appeal No. 26 of 2013, thereby assailing the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the District Forum. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. So far as the question whether the shop of the complainant under the name and style of Aggarwal Provision Store, 1, Ajabpur Khurd, Ganesh Vihar, Near Railway Phatak, Mata Mandir Road, Dehradun – 248001 (Uttarakhand) was insured under the insurance policy or not is concerned, it is to be stated here that from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum, it is evident that no evidence was filed by the insurance company in support of its defence and pleadings made in the written statement and, as such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remained unrebutted. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is also evident that the declaration form (Paper No. 28 on the record of First Appeal No. 26 of 2013) was filled in by the authorized representative/agent of the insurance company in “English” language and whereas the complainant has put his signatures over the same in “Hindi” language. From the perusal of the declaration form, it is also evident that the complainant has deposited the amount of premium by way of cheque No. 074731 dated 19.04.2010 of Rs. 4,250/- drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Arhat Bazar, Dehradun. In the letter head of the proprietorship concern of the complainant, the address of the shop has been mentioned as, “Aggarwal Provision Store, 1, Ajabpur Khurd, Ganesh Vihar, Near Railway Phatak, Mata Mandir Road, Dehradun – 248001 (Uttarakhand)”. It is also important to mention here that Atul Kapur and Company, Category ‘A’ surveyors in fire and misc. claims in their preliminary survey report dated 14.05.2010 (Paper Nos. 39 to 40) have stated that, “the insured is engaged in trading of grocery and daily needs items and have a shop at Ajabpur Khurd, Near Railway Crossing, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. It is reported that the said shop has been running at the same premises since 1985”. Thus, it is amply clear that the shop of the complainant situated at above-mentioned address of Dehradun was the one which was insured under the insurance policy in question and the authorized representative/agent of the insurance company has inadvertently written “Gurgaon” in place of “Dehradun” in the declaration form. Thus, it is amply clear that the shop of the complainant situated at above-mentioned address of Dehradun was the one which was insured under the insurance policy in question and the authorized representative/agent of the insurance company has inadvertently written “Gurgaon” in place of “Dehradun” in the declaration form. Thus, it is proved that the shop in question was insured with the insurance company and the view to this effect taken by the District Forum is perfectly justified and can not be faulted with. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that during the validity of the insurance policy, fire incident took place in the shop in question, which caused damage to the goods kept therein. The shop was insured for sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Atul Kapur and Company in their final survey report dated 20.11.2010 (Paper Nos. 31 to 36) have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,01,270/-. At page No. 2 of their report, under the heading “basis of assessment”, the surveyor have stated that since the insured had earlier disposed of several physical evidences of damages and hence the insured has revised his claim to the tune of Rs. 2,34,523/- based on items which were physical identifiable at the time of their survey. However, while assessing the loss, the surveyor has made deduction on account of non-submission of bills by the insured and the surveyor has further made depreciation @50% for want of purchase bills of fixed assets and by making the said deductions, the surveyor has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 1,01,270/-. We are not in agreement with the deductions made by the surveyor from the revised claim submitted by the insured, for the reason that the said items were physically identified by the surveyor, as has also been mentioned in their report. This apart, there is no question of depreciation @50% because the insurance was done on 20.04.2010 and the fire took place in the insured shop in the night of 23.04.2010, just after three days’ of the insurance. Hence, in these circumstances, the insured was entitled to the revised claim amount and the District Forum was perfectly justified in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,34,000/-. Hence, in these circumstances, the insured was entitled to the revised claim amount and the District Forum was perfectly justified in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,34,000/-. However, since the complainant has not submitted any documents with regard to purchase and sale of goods kept in the shop and damaged in the fire incident, the District Forum was not justified in awarding any interest to the complainant in case the above amount is not paid within a period of one month from the date of the impugned order. Therefore, the direction passed by the District Forum regarding payment of interest @9% p.a. in case the payment is not made within one month, is not justified and is liable to be set aside. This way, the appeal filed by the insurance company bearing First Appeal No. 26 of 2013 is fit to be partly allowed. 8. So far as the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation bearing First Appeal No. 186 of 2012 is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant is, in any way, entitled to the amount of compensation in excess to the amount awarded by the District Forum. From the report of the surveyor, it is evident that the complainant has revised his claim to the tune mentioned above and the District Forum has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/- per impugned order. We do not find any justification to enhance the same. The appeal filed by the complainant lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, First Appeal No. 186 of 2012 filed by the complainant is dismissed. First Appeal No. 26 of 2013 filed by the insurance company is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 08.11.2012 passed by the District Forum is modified by setting aside the direction to pay interest @9% p.a. in case the amount is not paid within one month and the insurance company is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/- to the complainant. The costs of the appeals made easy. 10. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 26 of 2013.