JUDGMENT Bashir A. Kirmani, J. (President) 1. Conversely proportional to the large size of this 11 years old file the case lies in a limited compass. Aggrieved of respondent-insurance company's refusal to indemnify him against loss caused to his admittedly insured building/complex in demolition by Jammu Municipal Corporation complainant instituted this case against them on the ground that in terms of admitted contract of the insurance they were obliged to indemnify him and their failure therein constituted an actionable deficiency; which is resisted by insurer company on the plea that loss having happened due to demolition under orders of government and Jammu Municipal Corporation was not covered under a particular condition of the policy expressly excluding such loss. On their part Municipal Corporation later arrayed as respondent maintain that whatever they did was in exercise of lawful power not actionable under Consumer Law for want of complainant's consumer relation with them. During course of proceedings parties have furnished detailed evidence affidavits alongwith relevant documents with witnesses cross examined at length which have been referred to by learned counsel during course of arguments supplemented by written submissions also. We have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. All key questions are admitted; that property of 2nd complainant transferred to her by husband with 1st having a live interest therein was damaged due to demolition, as also that it was insured with respondent company under a valid fire and general policy of insurance in view whereof ordinarily insurer company would be obliged to indemnify insured for loss suffered, which they deny under the exclusion clause which accordingly comes under direct focus. Here is the clause" "V. Roit, Strike, Malicious and Terrorism Damage Loss of or visible physical damage or destruction by external violent means directly caused to the property insured but excluding those caused by: (a) XXXXX (b) Permanent or temporary dispossession resulting from confiscation, commandeering, requisition or destruction by order of the Government or any lawfully constituted Authority." Under this condition therefore damage covered by dispossession due to destruction under orders of government or a local authority though from an external source would not be covered. Even though it is doubtful as to whether the condition stipulates such damage per se or the one caused by dispossession as a consequence of destruction due to such action. Even though it is doubtful as to whether the condition stipulates such damage per se or the one caused by dispossession as a consequence of destruction due to such action. However, taken as projected by Insurer Company the objection is that since damage was done due to demolition ordered by Municipal Corporation a statutory authority, it would not be covered. Automatically thus the central fact emerging for consideration is the order of demolition passed either by govt. or Jammu Municipal Corporation, which incidentally has not been brought on record by any of the respondents despite express directions and that being so the very basis of respondent insurance company's objections to indemnity collapses dismantling the whole edifice of their case; because in absence of demolition order the exclusion clause would not operate, and once it is so, nothing to shield the insurance company would remain. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to mention that original construction was raised by predecessor in interest of complainants in 1984 and certain violations of building plan obtaining therein were compounded by Municipal Council/Municipality before Minister incharge (appeal authority then) in 1984 and 1985 whereafter under extended permission certain additions were made which too reportedly suffered certain minor deviations again compounded by Municipality in 1996 before J & K Special Tribunal which substituted appeal authority, in view whereof on date of demolition the building as it was existed lawfully and was also protected under a status quo order passed by civil court. These circumstances render the existence demolition order, crucial to sustain insurance company's objections as aforesaid, which as already mentioned has not been furnished despite orders, leading to the conclusion that as a matter of fact and notwithstanding the demolition, no such order ever existed, pushing insurance company on back foot; and rendering them liable to indemnify the complainants. Needless to say that general notices of eviction and demolition reportedly issued by Municipal authorities in random through publication in papers cannot substitute demolition orders for want of legal substance. 2. That brings us to the quantum of indemnity claimable by complainants against insurance company. As per records complainants have furnished an estimate of loss prepared by Executive Engineer R & B Division No. 1, Jammu filed in civil court under No. 1239 dated 29.6.2004 (page 92 of the file), reflecting loss/damage caused to the insured structure to the tune of Rs. As per records complainants have furnished an estimate of loss prepared by Executive Engineer R & B Division No. 1, Jammu filed in civil court under No. 1239 dated 29.6.2004 (page 92 of the file), reflecting loss/damage caused to the insured structure to the tune of Rs. 16,98,066 which has not been contested muchless disproved by any of respondents and emerges as a credible document. Out of estimated loss however, an approximate amount of rupees five lac appears to be liable to be deducted for having been calculated for certain items not expressly covered by insurance policy (Item No. 10) (C II), 10(e), (f), (g), 11(1)(II), 12, 13(V), (VI) & 16) and (d)), reducing it to Rs. 11,98,066 (say Rs. 12.00 lac), which requires to be awarded to the complainants; alongwith compensation for loss of profit and business during intervening years which even while assessed at a meager 4% per annum would add another Rs. 5.28 lac thereto. Before parting it may be mentioned that in view of the clear and admitted facts reference to evidence and other materials is not required; nor do we feel inclined to enter upon the contentious issues between complainants and respondent (Municipal Corporation) or respondents inter se as they do not fall within the ambit of consumer grievance. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and an award for Rs. 17.28 lac (Rs. 12.00 lac + Rs. 5.28 lac) passed in favour of complainants together with litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/, bringing total liability of respondent insurance company towards complainants to Rs. 17.38 lac, which be paid to them or deposited in this Commission within a period of six weeks from now. Matter stands accordingly disposed of. Office to follow up.