ORDER : R.S. Sharma, President The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. seeking following reliefs :- (1) To direct the to pay remaining amount of Rs.31,93,884/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Four) after deducting a sum of Rs.7,61,116/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty One Thousand One Hundred and Sixteen) from the actual amount of damage i.e. Rs.39,55,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh and Fifty Five Thousand) to the complainant. (2) To direct the O.P. to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 29.11.2014 till date of payment. (3) To directed the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards compensation for mental account, which has been suffered by the complainant due to unfair trade practise and deficiency in service committed by the O.P. (4) To direct the O.P to pay entire cost of litigation and other reliefs as this Commission deems fit, to the complainant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is proprietor of firm M/s Life Style. The stock of Cosmetics items and cash available in the shop of the complainant was insured by the O.P. under insurance policy No.2939/51536360/03/000 dated 21.07.2014 for the period from 21.07.2014 to 20.07.2015. The complainant obtained cash credit limit facility from Karnataka Bank, Branch Raipur (C.G.) and the above insurance policy was issued by the O.P. through Karnataka Bank. Karnataka Bank is joint venture of the O.P. According to Schedule A of the insurance Policy, the cosmetic stock was insured for Rs.52,00,0000/-, according to Schedule B, the sum assured for burglary and robbery was Rs.53,00,000/-, according to Schedule C, the sum assured for money was Rs.1,00,000/- and according to Schedule J the sum assured for public liability was Rs.10,000/- and the O.P. obtaining premium according to total sum assured. On 29.11.2014 incident of fire occurred in the shop of the complainant, due to which the entire goods kept in the shop was damaged. The insured cosmetic items which was insured with the O.P. were also damaged and the cash to the tune of Rs.55,000/- also burnt. The complainant immediately gave intimation regarding the accident to the O.P., in response to which the O.P. sent its employee from the local office and got conducted survey. The insured cosmetic items which was insured with the O.P. were also damaged and the cash to the tune of Rs.55,000/- also burnt. The complainant immediately gave intimation regarding the accident to the O.P., in response to which the O.P. sent its employee from the local office and got conducted survey. After four days of the incident, the O.P. sent a Surveyor from Delhi, who conducted survey for assessment of the loss. The complainant provided all relevant documents to the Surveyor. The intimation regarding the incident given to office of Fire Brigade and Karnataka Bank and concerned Police Station was also informed in writing. The O.P. was not settling the claim of the complainant, whereas for settlement of his claim, the complainant contacted the O.P. many times. The O.P. issued Claim No. C.L. 14051414. The complainant submitted claim form with the O.P. for loss of the stock of cosmetic to the tune of Rs.39,55,000/- and for cash to the tune of Rs.55,000/-, but the O.P. did not settle the above claim. The complainant provided audit report as well as report of the Fire Brigade team, purchase bills of the entire goods, sale bills, balance sheet. The Surveyor S. Soni and Company through his letter demanded documents i.e. claim form, report of fire brigade team, police report, newspaper, cosmetic stock register dated 01.04.2014 to 29.11.2014, credit account, documents for sale, purchase and other expenses, bank stock statement, bank account statement, rent agreement and balance sheet, which were provided by the complainant, even then the O.P. did not settle the claim of the complainant. The O.P. sent discharge voucher to the complainant which is printed in which it is mentioned that the complainant received a sum of Rs.7,63,106/- in full and final satisfaction. The complainant made protest regarding the same and put a note that the above amount will be under protest and the Company is making pressure on the complainant to receive the same. The O.P. received the discharge voucher on 03.11.2015, which is form of the O.P. In the meantime, the O.P. deposited the above amount in the bank account of the complainant through NEFT and the Karnataka bank had adjusted the above amount in the cash credit account. The O.P. received the discharge voucher on 03.11.2015, which is form of the O.P. In the meantime, the O.P. deposited the above amount in the bank account of the complainant through NEFT and the Karnataka bank had adjusted the above amount in the cash credit account. Thereafter the complainant sent letter dated 13.11.2015 to the O.P. mentioning that without consent of the complainant the above amount was deposited in the account of Karnataka Bank through N.E.F.T. and if the O.P. wishes it can receive back the amount, but the O.P. did not give any reply to the above letter and did not pay the amount of actual loss. Thus, the O.P. committed unfair trade practise as well as deficiency in service. On 18.07.2016, the complainant sent legal notice to the O.P. through advocate and the same has been received by the O.P. even then the O.P. did not give reply to the above notice and also did not pay the amount of actual loss. Due to above act of the O.P., the complainant suffered mental agony. The insured value of the stock of cosmetic is Rs.52,00,000/- but at the time of incident stock to the tune of Rs.39,55,000/- was remained, which was completely damaged. The O.P. without consent of the complainant and in spite of putting a note "Under Protest" deposited a sum of Rs.7,63,106/- through N.E.F.T. in bank account of Karnataka Bank. Hence, the complainant filed instant complaint and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the complaint. 3. In the instant case, the O.P. has not filed its written statement within prescribed period, hence this Commission closed the right of the O.P. to file written statement vide order dated 28.01.2017. On the basis of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CLT 476, Hon'ble National Commission in Green View Apartment Welfare Society v. M/s. GAV Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (3) CLT 18 and Vibgyor Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Millenium Towers Harmony CHS Limited, 2016 (3) CPJ 228 (NC), it has been held that the written statement filed by O.P. after lapse of prescribed period, cannot be taken on record. 4. The complainant has filed documents. 4. The complainant has filed documents. A-1 is insurance policy issued by the O.P. No.1, A-2 is intimation given to Police Station, Gole Bazar, A-3 is receipt issued by Municipal Corporation, Raipur, A-4 is Fire Report of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, A-5 is letter dated 07.07.2015 sent by the complainant to the Chief Manager, Karnataka Bank Pvt. Ltd., Branch Raipur, A-6 is letter sent by the complainant to Chief Manager, Universal Sompo Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Raipur, A-7 is Statement of Account of the complainant with the Karnataka Bank Ltd. for the period from 01.08.2015 to 26.09.2016, A-8 is letter dated 13.11.2015 sent by the complainant to the O.P., A-9 is notice dated 18.07.2016 sent by the Advocate on behalf of the complainant, A- 10 is copy of purchase register for the period from 01.04.2014 to 30.11.2014, A-11 is newspaper cutting dated 30.11.2014, A-12 is Audit Report of the complainant for the Financial Year 2011-12, A-13 is Audit Report of the complainant for the Financial Year 2012-13, A-14 is Audit Report of the complainant for the Financial Year 2013-14, A-15 is Income Tax Return for the year 2013-14, A-16, is Income Tax Return for the year 2014-15, A-17 is Statement of Stock in Trade and Bank Debts with Karnataka Bank for April, 2014, A-18 is Statement of Stock in Trade and Bank Debts with Karnataka Bank for May, 2014, A-19 is Statement of Stock in Trade and Bank Debts with Karnataka Bank for June, 2014, A-20 is Statement of Stock in Trade and Bank Debts for August, 2014, A-21 is Statement of Stock in Trade and Bank Debts for September, 2014, A-22 is Statement of Stock in Trade and Bank Debts for October, 2014, A-23 is letter dated 09.12.2014 sent by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor to the complainant, A-24 is Discharge Voucher dated 31.10.2015. 5. The O.P. has filed documents. Document NO-1 is Shopkeepers Package Policy Schedule, NO-2 is terms and conditions of Shopkeepers Insurance Policy, NO-3 is Survey Report given by Sanjeev Soni, S. Soni & Company, Surveyors, Loss Assessors and Investigator, NO-4 is Fire Insurance Claim Form, NO-5 is copy of pass book of Shri Narendra Giripunje and Smt. Sunita Giripunje in respect of account No. 3246000100072900 with Punjab National Bank. 6. Shri Sanjay Dadsena, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the complainant is proprietor of firm M/s. Life Style. 6. Shri Sanjay Dadsena, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the complainant is proprietor of firm M/s. Life Style. The stock of cosmetics items and cash available in the shop of the complainant was duly insured with the O.P. The O.P. issued insurance policy, which is effective for the period from 21.07.2014 to 20.07.2015. The sum assured for cosmetic stock was Rs.52,00,000/-, sum assured for burglary and robbery was Rs.53,00,000/-, sum assured for money was Rs.1,00,000/- and sum assured for public liability was Rs.10,000/-. On 29.11.2014, incident of fire was occurred in the shop of the complainant due to which the entire goods, kept in the shop was damaged. The insured cosmetics items which were insured with the O.P. were also damaged and the cash to the tune of Rs.55,000/- also burnt in the incident of fire. Intimation regarding the incident was given to the O.P. immediately. The O.P. sent its employees from the local office, who conducted spot inspection. After 4 days of the incident, the O.P. sent Surveyor, who conducted survey and assessed the loss. The complainant provided all relevant documents to the Surveyor, but the O.P. was not settling the claim of the complainant. The complainant contacted the O.P. so many times. The complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.39,55,000/- and cash to the tune of Rs.55,000/-. The O.P. sent discharge voucher to the complainant, which is in printed format. The complainant received a sum of Rs.7,63,106/- under protest from the O.P. and he immediately sent letter to the O.P. for payment of remaining amount, but the O.P. only deposited a sum of Rs.7,63,106/- in the bank account of the complainant through N.E.F.T. The complainant sent letters to the O.P. for payment of remaining amount, but the O.P. did not give reply of the letter and also did not pay the remaining amount. The complainant is entitled to get the compensation to the tune of Rs.31,93,884/- from the O.P. after adjustment of Rs.7,63,106/- from actual amount of damage i.e. Rs.39,55,000/-. The complaint be allowed and relief as prayed in the complaint be granted to the complainant. 7. In the instant case, the O.P. has not filed its written statement within prescribed period hence this Commission has closed the right of the O.P. to file written statement vide order dated 28.01.2017. 8. The complaint be allowed and relief as prayed in the complaint be granted to the complainant. 7. In the instant case, the O.P. has not filed its written statement within prescribed period hence this Commission has closed the right of the O.P. to file written statement vide order dated 28.01.2017. 8. Shri Deepesh Thawait, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has argued that the Surveyor was appointed by the O.P. and the Surveyor after conducting survey gave his detailed report in which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,63,105.70. The Surveyor's report is a valuable and reliable document. The report of the Surveyor can be given due weightage and it cannot be discarded lightly. The complainant has not filed any evidence to rebut the Surveyor's Report, therefore, on the basis of Surveyor's Report, the O.P. sent discharge voucher to the tune of Rs.7,63,106/- to the complainant and the above amount was credited in the bank account of the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any more amount than Rs.7,63,106/- from the O.P. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the documents filed by them in the complaint case. 10. It is admitted that the complainant has obtained insurance policy from the O.P. The policy obtained by the complainant is Shopkeepers Package Policy, which was effective for the period from 21.07.2014 to 20.07.2015. According to the policy, Fire & Allied Perils Building and/or contents are insured for Rs.52,00,000/-, for Burglary and Robbery sum insured is Rs.53,00,000/-, for money the sum insured is Rs.1,00,000/- and for public liability the sum insured is Rs.10,000/-. Thus total sum insured is Rs.1,06,10,000/-. 11. The complainant pleaded that on 29.11.2014, the incident of fire occurred in the shop of the complainant due to which entire goods kept in the shop were damaged. The complainant has filed a written report dated 01.12.2014 (document A-2) made to Station House Officer, Police Station, Gole Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) regarding incident of fire in the shop of the complainant. The complainant also sent intimation to Municipal Corporation, Raipur regarding the incident. The complainant deposit a sum of Rs.9,890/- with Fire Brigade Department of Municipal Corporation, Raipur in respect of charges of extinguishing fire in the shop of the complainant. 12. The complainant also sent intimation to Municipal Corporation, Raipur regarding the incident. The complainant deposit a sum of Rs.9,890/- with Fire Brigade Department of Municipal Corporation, Raipur in respect of charges of extinguishing fire in the shop of the complainant. 12. The O.P. has filed copy of Survey Report dated 30.07.2015 of Shri Sanjeev Soni, S. Soni & Co., Surveyors, Loss Assessors and Investigator. In para 6.0 of the internal page No.3, there is mention regarding the incident. In para 10.0 of the Survey Report, the Surveyor mentioned :- "The probable cause of fire as per different sources and as per our observations has been summarized as under :- As per fire brigade report : As per fire brigade report, the cause of loss was due to short circuit. As per witness statement : As per witness statement, the cause of loss was due to short circuit. As per our observations : During the course of survey, it has been noticed that the wiring of the ground floor had been got melted. Considering the same we are of the opinion that the cause of loss might be due to short circuit which is accidental in nature and well covered under the policy." 13. Looking to the report of the Surveyor, it appears that the incident of fire in the shop of the complainant took place due to short circuit, which is accidental in nature. The incident was duly covered under the policy. 14. The complainant has pleaded that due to incident of fire in the shop, he suffered loss of Rs.39,55,000/-. The complainant has filed Audit Reports of M/s. Life Style for Financial Year 2011-2012 (document A-12), for Financial Year 2012-13 (document A-13) and for Financial Year 2013-14 (document A-14). The complainant has also filed copy of Income Tax Return Verification forms for Assessment Year 2013-14 (document A-15) and Income Tax Return Acknowledgement for Assessment Year 2014-15 (document A-16). The Surveyor mentioned in his report that he verified the records, physical inventory of stock, current year verification, opening stock, purchases, direct expenses, sales, vat return etc. and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,63,105.70. 15. The report of the Surveyor, is a reliable evidence, therefore, the Surveyor's report is genuine and dependable. The report of the Surveyor can be given due weightage and it cannot be discarded lightly. The report of Surveyor is acceptable. and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,63,105.70. 15. The report of the Surveyor, is a reliable evidence, therefore, the Surveyor's report is genuine and dependable. The report of the Surveyor can be given due weightage and it cannot be discarded lightly. The report of Surveyor is acceptable. We do not find any reason to discard the report of Surveyor. 16. In National Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Krishna Industries, 2017 (1) CPR 102 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed that "Report of Surveyor or Investigator cannot be discriminated." 17. In Devendra Malhotra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2016 (3) CLT 525 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :- "Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 19 & 21 (a) (ii) - Insurance claim Surveyor report held it is a established legal proposition that the report made by the surveyor, who is a professional in his field, cannot disbelieved, unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so." 18. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pavan Enterprises & Anr., 2016 (1) CPJ 503 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :- "12. I see no reason to discard the report of the Surveyor. He appears to be a guideless witness. No motive was ever attributed to him. There must be some reasonable ground or doubt to reject his report. The report of the Surveyor carries infinite significance as was held in Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (SLT Soft) 1 : 2014 (CPJ Soft) 1 : (2000) 10 SCC 19 and in D.N. Badoni v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 (1) C.P.J. 272 (NC)." 19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pave Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (3) CPR 577 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Loss of assessment by approved Surveyor can be discarded only on cogent reasons". 20. In Garg Acrylics Ltd., Through Sh. Anish Bansal G.M. (G.M.) Authorised Representative v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 (1) CPR 273 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :- "11.................. This is settled Law that the report of the surveyor is to be given much more weightage than any other piece of evidence. See the Law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others v. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 19 & in D.N. Badoni v. Oriental Insurance Co. This is settled Law that the report of the surveyor is to be given much more weightage than any other piece of evidence. See the Law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others v. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 19 & in D.N. Badoni v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC)". 21. In The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Regional Manager v. Ishwar Singh, 2015 (1) CPR 157 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :- "17. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the Apex Court Judgment in the case Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 507 wherein the Apex Court has held as under :- "There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them". 22. The Surveyor assessed the loss on the basis of verification of records, physical inventory of stock, bank account statement, current year trading account etc. On the basis of above records, the Surveyor reached to the conclusion that the complainant has suffered loss only to the tune of Rs.7,63,105.70. The Surveyor gave detailed reasons in his Survey Report for assessing the loss. The report of the Surveyor is genuine and acceptable. The complainant has not filed any evidence, on the basis of which Surveyor's report can be discarded or doubted, therefore, the Surveyor Report is acceptable. Therefore, on the basis of the Survey Report of the Surveyor, the complainant is only entitled for Rs.7,63,105.70 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand One Hundred Five and Seventy Paise) and the sum of Rs.7,63,106/- was already deposited by the O.P. in the bank account of the complainant through N.E.F.T. and the complainant has signed the Discharge Voucher (document A-24), therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any more amount than Rs.7,63,106/-. 23. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against O.P., is liable to be dismissed, hence the same is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.