ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present complaint is directly filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before State Commission. It is pleaded that complainant is running a petrol filling station at Village Jaan Post Office Jarri District Kullu H.P. in the name and style of Manikaran Filling Station. It is pleaded that opposite party had issued insurance policy to the complainant for the canopy raised at filling station in consideration amount of Rs. 300000/- (Thirty lac). It is pleaded that opposite party also received premium of Rs. 5775/- (Five thousand seven hundred seventy five) from complainant. It is pleaded that on dated 14.12.2014 there was heavy snowfall and due to snowfall the steel structure of canopy was fallen down which caused heavy loss to complainant. It is pleaded that complainant informed opposite party telephonically as well as by way of written letter. It is pleaded that opposite party repudiated claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the tune of Rs. 1500000/- (Fifteen lac) for construction of new canopy. In addition complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 1000000/- (Ten lac) for loss of his business. In addition complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 500000/- (Five lac) for mental torture sustained by him. 2. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that earlier also complainant filed consumer complaint No. 1 of 2016 before State Commission and the same was dismissed in default for non-appearance of complainant on dated 31.05.2016. It is pleaded that present complaint has been filed by complainant without setting aside the earlier order. It is pleaded that subsequent complaint on same cause of action is not maintainable. It is pleaded that complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that complainant had purchased the policy for commercial purpose and State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It is pleaded that complainant got financed his building and stock from Punjab National Bank Jarri District Kullu and bank had insured building along-with stock in consideration amount of Rs. 3000000/- (Thirty lac) under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. It is pleaded that complainant sustained loss on 14.12.2014 due to heavy snowfall. It is pleaded that loss was not informed to the opposite party immediately and same was intimated after one month. 3000000/- (Thirty lac) under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. It is pleaded that complainant sustained loss on 14.12.2014 due to heavy snowfall. It is pleaded that loss was not informed to the opposite party immediately and same was intimated after one month. It is pleaded that complainant has violated terms and conditions of policy and it is further pleaded that claim of complainant did not cover under perils as mentioned in Standard Fire and Special Perils policy. It is pleaded that loss sustained by complainant due to heavy snowfall does not fall within the definition of peril as mentioned in the insurance policy. It is pleaded that opposite party deputed Shri Bhupekeshwar Thakur advocate as investigator in the present case. It is further pleaded that opposite party also deputed Shri Sanjay Vaidya surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the preliminary survey. It is pleaded that opposite party also appointed Shri Sita Ram Sharma as final surveyor who conducted the final survey and submitted report dated 10.02.2015. It is pleaded that surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 513500/- (Five lac thirteen thousand five hundred). It is pleaded that claim of complainant was repudiated on dated 13.08.2015 vide annexure OP-18. It is pleaded that present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that building along-with stock was financed/hypothecate with Punjab National Bank Jari District Kullu H.P. It is pleaded that building & apparatus used for lifting of petrol and diesel, furniture, glasses, retaining wall, boundary wall were insured for consideration amount of Rs. 1000000/- (Ten lac) and it is further pleaded that present State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is pleaded that present complaint cannot be decided by the State Commission in a summary manner. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 3. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 4. Following points arises for determination in present complaint. 1. Whether complaint filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of complaint. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 5. Complainant filed affidavit of Shri Sunder Lal Malik Ex.PA in evidence. 4. Following points arises for determination in present complaint. 1. Whether complaint filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of complaint. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 5. Complainant filed affidavit of Shri Sunder Lal Malik Ex.PA in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is running petrol filling station at village Jaan Post Office Jarri District Kullu H.P. in the name and style of M/s. Mani Karan Filling Station. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party issued insurance policy to complainant in consideration amount of Rs. 3000000/- (Thirty lac) and received premium of Rs. 5775/-(Five thousand seven hundred seventy five). There is further recital in the affidavit that policy No. 263202/11/2014/2618 dated 14.03.2014 was issued under combo insurance cover plan like STFI cover, fire basic cover, earthquake cover & terrorism cover. There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 14.12.2014 there was heavy snowfall in the area and steel structure of canopy fell down which caused heavy loss to the deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that information was given to opposite party telephonically as well as by way of written letter. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party appointed surveyor who visited the spot on 07.01.2015 and submitted surveyor report along-with photographs. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant visited the office of opposite party several times to indemnify the loss sustained by complainant but opposite party did not accept the request of complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party repudiated the claim illegally and committed deficiency in service. 6. Opposite party filed in evidence affidavit of Shri P.N. Bodh Senior Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ex. R.A. in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that loss suffered by complainant was not due to any peril as mentioned in the terms & conditions of policy. There is further recital in the affidavit that claim of complainant was repudiated on dated 13.08.2015 vide annexure OP-18. 7. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Bhupekeshwar Sharma investigator Ex. RB in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent was appointed as investigator by the office of opposite party for collection of weather data from metro logical department for 13.12.2014 and 14.12.2014. 7. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Bhupekeshwar Sharma investigator Ex. RB in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent was appointed as investigator by the office of opposite party for collection of weather data from metro logical department for 13.12.2014 and 14.12.2014. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has submitted investigation report annexure OP-6. There is further recital in the affidavit that report annexure OP-6 is true as per original and same be read in evidence. 8. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Sanjay Vaidya Ex. RC in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is duly authorized surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent conducted preliminary survey of the loss suffered by complainant qua canopy of petrol pump at M/s. Manikaran Filling Station Jaan Post Office Jari Tehsil Bhunter District Kullu on dated 17.01.2015 in the presence of representatives of complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent minutely inspected the loss and thereafter deponent submitted report on dated 10.02.2015 annexure OP-9. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent also obtained photographs. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Sita Ram Sharma Ex. RD in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is qualified civil engineer and has passed his diploma in civil engineering from Aligarh Muslim University in the year 1957. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent retired as Executive Engineer on dated 31.08.1993 from I&PH Department of H.P. Government. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent had submitted report in more than 200 cases and his licence would expire on 07.03.2019. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent had submitted report annexure OP-16. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has assessed the loss at Rs. 513500/- (Five lac thirteen thousand five hundred) vide report annexure OP-16. 10. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that earlier consumer complaint No. 1 of 2016 filed by complainant on same cause of action was dismissed in default by State Commission on dated 31.05.2016 and subsequent complaint on same cause of action is not maintainable and on this ground complaint be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. State Commission has carefully perused the order dated 31.05.21016 passed in consumer complaint No. 1 of 2016. It is proved on record that State Commission did not decide the earlier complaint on merits but same was dismissed in default. It is well settled law that if former complaint is dismissed in default then subsequent complaint on same cause of action can be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. In the present case cause of action accrued to complainant on dated 14.12.2014 and subsequent complaint was filed by complainant on dated 14.06.2016 within two years from the date of cause of action and hence it is held that subsequent complaint is maintainable before State Commission. See 2000 (1) CPJ 19 SC New India Assurance Company Limited v. R. Srinivasan . 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that insurance policy was obtained by complainant for commercial purpose and present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not maintainable and on this ground complaint be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 service of any description covers all services of insurance company. 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that insurance policy was issued for a sum of Rs. 1000000/- (Ten lac) only and State Commission has no original territorial jurisdiction to entertain original complaint and on this ground complaint be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that for the purpose of original jurisdiction accumulated relief sought by complainant should be calculated. In the present case complainant sought relief of Rs. 1500000/- (Fifteen lac) sustained by complainant for the construction of new canopy. In addition complainant has sought relief of Rs. 1000000/- (Ten lac) for loss of business and in addition complainant has also sought relief of Rs. 500000/- (Five lac) for mental torture. Total sum of relief sought comes to Rs. 3000000/- (Thirty lac). Hence it is held that State Commission has original territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. See 2017 (2) CPR 449 NC Tushar Batra & Anr. v. M/s. Unitech Limited . 13. 500000/- (Five lac) for mental torture. Total sum of relief sought comes to Rs. 3000000/- (Thirty lac). Hence it is held that State Commission has original territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. See 2017 (2) CPR 449 NC Tushar Batra & Anr. v. M/s. Unitech Limited . 13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that case of complainant falls within general exclusions clause of insurance policy i.e. Act of God and on this ground complaint be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the general exclusions clause annexure OP-3 placed on record. In general exclusions clause Act of God has been defined as Lightening, STFI, Subsidence, Landslide and Rock slide. It is proved on record that canopy of complainant sustained damage due to heavy snowfall. State Commission is of the opinion that snowfall is the act of nature and not Act of God. We are of the opinion that Himachal Pradesh is hilly area and we are of the opinion that in hilly area snowfall is a normal routine process. State Commission is of the opinion that snowfall is atmospheric water vapours frozen into ice crystals as white layer. It is held that snowfall is act of nature and not Act of God in hilly area like Himachal Pradesh. It is held that case of complainant did not fall within general exclusions clause of insurance policy. Even the word snowfall is missing in general exclusions clause of insurance policy annexure OP-3 placed on record. Even Bhupekeshwar Sharma investigator has submitted in his report that loss was sustained to the canopy of complainant due to heavy snowfall. Even Ld. Sita Ram Sharma retired Executive Engineer has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 513500/- (Five lac thirteen thousand five hundred). State Commission is of the opinion that report submitted by Ld. Sita Ram Sharma retired Executive Engineer is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. Complainant did not file any counter loss assessment report of any expert. Report filed by Ld. Sita Ram Sharma retired Executive Engineer remained unrebutted on record. It is proved on record that complainant has obtained insurance policy w.e.f. 21.03.2014 to 20.03.2015 and it is proved on record that opposite party received gross premium to the tune of Rs. 5775/- (Five thousand seven hundred seventy five). Report filed by Ld. Sita Ram Sharma retired Executive Engineer remained unrebutted on record. It is proved on record that complainant has obtained insurance policy w.e.f. 21.03.2014 to 20.03.2015 and it is proved on record that opposite party received gross premium to the tune of Rs. 5775/- (Five thousand seven hundred seventy five). It is held that insurance company had illegally repudiated the claim of complainant and committed deficiency in service. In view of above stated facts it is held that insurance company is under legal obligation to indemnify the complainant. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No. 1 complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 513500/- (Five lac thirteen thousand five hundred) to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. In addition opposite party is also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) to the complainant for mental torture suffered by the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Other relief sought by complainant is declined because there is no positive evidence relating to loss of business sustained by complainant. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Entire amount will be deposited by opposite party within one month from date of receipt of certified copy of order failing which opposite party will be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till realization. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties free of costs forthwith strictly as per rules. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Complaint is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.