JUDGMENT : Sunil Hali (Retd.), President. The complainants owned two buildings. One, a three storied and other two storied at Kralpora Chadoora District Budgam, Kashmir. On account of migration, the complainants had to move to Jammu. The property in question was insured with the Opposite Party/Insurance Company and said insurance was done at Jammu. The property stood insured in the year 2011 i.e. from 19.09.2011 to 18.04.2012. The sum insured was Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lac only) each under single fire policy bearing No. 420800/11/11/3100000267. 2. The property owned by the complainants was gutted in fire on 13.11.2011 at 3.15 P.M. The Opposite Party was accordingly informed, consequent of which, the claim was registered. The Insurance Company sent their Surveyor to submit the report to the company. Requisite documents were also requisitioned from the complainants. An FIR being FIR No.146/2011 was also registered with the concerned Police Station. 3. One Sh. Kuldeep Sharma was deputed as Surveyor by the Insurance Company. Opposite Parties thereafter did not intimate the complainants about the fate of their claim case, as a result of which, notice was served on the Opposite Parties by the counsel of the complainants on 27.04.2015. It appears that the Surveyor, Sh. Kuldeep Sharma without informing the complainants, submitted his report on 11.10.2013 as per the information of the Insurance Company. The company did not inform the complainants regarding the filing of the report by the Surveyor as also seeking their objections to the same, as a result of which, the present complaint has been filed. 4. The stand of the Opposite Party is that the complainants were the owners of two buildings, one was two storied and other was three storied for residential purposes at Kralpora Tehsil Chadoora District Budgam, Kashmir. Insurance of the buildings is admitted by the Opposite Party. It is stated that the case of the complainants was closed on 11.12.2012 as "No Claim/Disclaimer". It is contended that the complainants had again approached the Opposite Party/ Insurance Company on 21.05.2014 for reopening of the claim, which was closed as above said. The claim was not reopened in view of alleged non-cooperative attitude of the complainants. It is contended that the complainants failed to agitate the matter within 12 months from the date of disclaimer and the claim of the complainants is deemed to have been abandoned and complainants are not entitled to any compensation. 5. The claim was not reopened in view of alleged non-cooperative attitude of the complainants. It is contended that the complainants failed to agitate the matter within 12 months from the date of disclaimer and the claim of the complainants is deemed to have been abandoned and complainants are not entitled to any compensation. 5. It is further contended that the surveyor, who had gone on spot and issued a number of reminders asking the complainants to complete the formalities for settlement of loss and assessment of damages payable to them. It is admitted by the Opposite Parties that the surveyor had submitted his report on 09.10.2013 when the said surveyor assessed the loss to the double storey building with attic @ Rs. 1,13,826/- after applying the average clause and for the other double storey building loss was assessed @ Rs. 1,06,459/-. In essence it is the stand of the Opposite Parties. 6. We heard the learned counsels for the parties. It is admitted that the complainants had insured their two houses by a common policy and the amount insured was Rs. 8,00,000/- (rupees eight lacs only). The property was destroyed in fire, which fact is not being denied by the Opposite Parties. The contention of the Opposite Parties that the file was closed as no Claim/Disclaimer is belied by their own stand that the surveyor had gone on spot and sent his report in 2013. Therefore, once the case was closed, there was no occasion or reason for the Opposite Parties for sending the surveyor, who submitted his report in 2013. The report has been filed by the Opposite Parties with their objections. Thus it is a clear indicator that there was no disclaimer or no claim. Therefore, the contention that case was closed by the Insurance Company is belied by the aforementioned facts. 7. Now coming to the assessment made by the surveyor: Value At Risk: 1. Double Storey Building: The area of the double storey insured building is Considering the rate of construction of similar type of building as prevailing at the time of loss 20'x 24-480 Sft Rs. 1600/Sft The cost of the building is 480 x 1600 = Rs.7,68,000.00 Less dep. Now coming to the assessment made by the surveyor: Value At Risk: 1. Double Storey Building: The area of the double storey insured building is Considering the rate of construction of similar type of building as prevailing at the time of loss 20'x 24-480 Sft Rs. 1600/Sft The cost of the building is 480 x 1600 = Rs.7,68,000.00 Less dep. 39% as the building is quite old Reportedly constructed in the year 1987 (26 yrs old) Rs.2,99,520.00 So, value of the insured building is Rs.4,68,480.00 Sum insured available Rs.4,00,000.00 It appears that the double storey building is adequately insured. 2. Double Storey With Attik Building/three Storey Building: The plinth area of three storey insured's building 30'x24'=720 Sft. Considering the present rate of construction of three storey building as Rs.2000/Sft, the construction of the building is 720x2000.00 -14,40,000.00 Less dep. 50% as the building old reportedly constructed in the year 1978 Rs. 20,000.00 =14,40,000.00 Sum insured available Rs.4,00,000.00 This shows the insurance coverage is inadequate Amount claimed Rs. 8,04,000.00 Rs.12,60,000.00 Total Rs.20,64,000.00 Amount assessed Rs. 1,24,686.00 Rs.2,04,687.00 Total Rs.3,29,373.00 Amount adjusted Rs.2,20,285.00 8. While going through the assessment made by the surveyor, he has assessed the loss after taking the plinth area as 480 Sft. The value of the insured building is worked out at Rs. 4,68,480/-. With respect to the other building the plinth area is 720 Sft. After working out all the details the following compensation has been assessed by him: For three storey building Rs.1,13,826.00 For two storey building Rs.1,06,459.00 Total Rs.2,20,285.00 9. The surveyor has deducted 50% on account of depreciation and salvage at Rs. 33,000/- in both the buildings. 10. As per the learned counsel for the complainants, the depreciation has to be 20% of the building which is 20 to 40 years old. Be that as it may, the depreciation @ 50% assessed by the surveyor is on a very higher side. The surveyor does not indicate that on what parameters he has assessed the depreciation @ 50%. As per the Estimating and Costing in Civil Engineering manual also there has to be some methodology, by which, the depreciation is to be assessed. This manual has been relied upon in Complaint No. 1948/99 titled Smt. Drupdee vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and ors. 11. As per the Estimating and Costing in Civil Engineering manual also there has to be some methodology, by which, the depreciation is to be assessed. This manual has been relied upon in Complaint No. 1948/99 titled Smt. Drupdee vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and ors. 11. Therefore, we are not inclined to allow depreciation @ 50% and accordingly allow depreciation @ 20% of the buildings based on the fact that 1% is to be added for every year. The buildings being less than 30 years old will have to apply the depreciation of 20%. Therefore, the assessment made by the surveyor is accordingly reduced from 50% to 20% on account of depreciation. Consequently the amount of assessment is to be increased. 12. Therefore, in view of the discussion herein above, following compensation is payable to the complainants based on the report of the surveyor: Double Storey Building: (a) The total cost of the double storey building has been shown Rs. 7,68,000.00/-. After deducting 39% as depreciation, its value has been assessed at Rs. 4.68.480.00. The property is insured for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00. (b) Applying the afore mentioned principle in this case where the building has been destroyed, following is payable to the complainant: (i) Value of the building would be Rs. 4,00,000.00. (ii) Depreciation is reduced from 50% to 20% as per the manual, which comes to Rs. 80,000.00. (iii) After deduction of 15% for under insured, it comes to Rs. 2,60,000.00. (iv) Rs. 50,000.00 deducted on account of salvage. (v) Complainants would be entitled to Rs. 2,10,000.00 Third Storey Building: (a) Total value of the property insured is Rs. 4,00,000.00. Therefore, the complainants would be entitled to the followings: (i) Depreciation is reduced from 50% to 20% as per the manual, which comes to Rs. 80.000. 00. (ii) After deduction of 15% for under insured, it comes to Rs. 2,60,000.00. (iii) Rs. 50,000.00 deducted on account of salvage. (iv) Complainants would be entitled to Rs. 2,10,000.00 Total compensation for both the buildings comes to Rs. 4,20,000.00. 13. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. 4,20,000.00 (rupees four lacs twenty thousand only) for both the buildings along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint. Complainants are also allowed litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000.00 (rupees ten thousand only). For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. 4,20,000.00 (rupees four lacs twenty thousand only) for both the buildings along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint. Complainants are also allowed litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000.00 (rupees ten thousand only). The opposite parties are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in this Commission within a period of six weeks.