ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President - Present consumer complaint is filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that shop premises of complainant is situated near Hotel Nest Sarwari Market Kullu District Kullu H.P. It is pleaded that complainant use to purchase shoes/feet wear from different feet wear dealers situated at Ludhiana, Patiala, Karnal, Delhi Agra etc. It is further pleaded that shop alongwith feet wear/shoes were insured with opposite party. It is pleaded that on dated 02.05.2011 at about 8:00 pm proprietor of shop closed his shop and left for his residence. It is further pleaded that at about 11:25 pm complainant received telephonic information from Suresh Awasthi owner of shop that fire took place in the shop. It is further pleaded that fire brigade was also informed and it is further pleaded that stock and shoes lying in wooden racks were damaged. It is further pleaded that incident was reported to the insurance company and insurance company deputed surveyor. It is further pleaded that after completion of all codal formalities claim was submitted before opposite party but opposite party did not settle claim. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 3500000/- (Thirty five lacs). In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 121400/- (One lac twenty one thousand four hundred) alongwith interest @18% per annum. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) as damage. In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 2. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that insurance policy was issued w.e.f 18.06.2010 to 17.06.2011 in the sum of Rs. 3500000/- (Thirty five lac). It is further pleaded that insurance company appointed surveyor namely Rajesh Sood to conduct preliminary survey. It is further pleaded that thereafter final surveyor was appointed who had assessed loss sustained by complainant to the tune of Rs. 655850/- (Six lac fifty five thousand eight hundred fifty). It is further pleaded that some bills submitted by complainant were founded to be bogus. It is further pleaded that TIN numbers of some of the bills did not exist. It is further pleaded that complainant has submitted highly exaggerated claim. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 3. 655850/- (Six lac fifty five thousand eight hundred fifty). It is further pleaded that some bills submitted by complainant were founded to be bogus. It is further pleaded that TIN numbers of some of the bills did not exist. It is further pleaded that complainant has submitted highly exaggerated claim. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that State Bank of India is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 has only insured the complainant''s shop as per instructions of complainant. It is further pleaded that cash credit limit was sanctioned in favour of complainant to the tune of Rs. 2500000/- (Twenty five lac) by the bank. It is further pleaded that bills were directly submitted by the complainant to opposite party No.1 and it is further pleaded that bills and invoices were not supplied to opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.2 sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinders and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 5. State Commission on dated 10.06.2013 dismissed the consumer complaint and held that bills and invoices relied by complainant in support of claim were not genuine. 6. Thereafter complainant filed Appeal No.520 of 2013 before Hon''ble National Commission. Hon''ble National Commission decided appeal on dated 30.01.2018. Hon''ble National Commission allowed the appeal filed by complainant and set aside the impugned order passed by State Commission. Hon''ble National Commission restored the complaint to its original number and remanded the complaint for fresh adjudication on merits. 7. It is observed by State Commission that insurance policy annexure R-1 placed on record was issued by New India Assurance Company Limited and was not issued by New India Insurance Company Limited. It is also proved on record that Hon''ble National Commission in Appeal No.520/2013 has mentioned the name of opposite party No.1 as New India Assurance Company Limited. Hon''ble National Commission vide final order dated 30.01.2018 passed in Appeal No.520/2013 has corrected the memo of parties. Even version in the complaint was filed by New India Assurance Company Limited and was not filed by New India Insurance Company Limited. Hon''ble National Commission vide final order dated 30.01.2018 passed in Appeal No.520/2013 has corrected the memo of parties. Even version in the complaint was filed by New India Assurance Company Limited and was not filed by New India Insurance Company Limited. Hence it is ordered that name of New India Insurance Company Limited will be deemed to be deleted and name of New India Assurance Company Limited is ordered to be incorporated in the memo of parties. 8. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of complainant and opposite party No.1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 at the time of arguments. 9. Following points arise for determination in the present complaint: 1. Whether consumer complaint filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of consumer complaint? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 10. Complainant filed affidavit of Krishan Gopal proprietor M/s. Shoe Land in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is sole proprietor of M/s. Shoe Land situated near Hotel Nest Sarwari Bazar Kullu District Kullu H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that cash credit limit to the tune of Rs. 2500000/- (Twenty five lac) was obtained by deponent from SBI Dhalpur Kullu H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 02.05.2011 at about 8:00 pm deponent closed the shop and left for his residence. There is further recital in the affidavit that at about 11:25pm deponent received telephonic information from landlord namely Shri Suresh Awasthi that fire took place in the shop. There is further recital in the affidavit that fire brigade was also called. There is further recital in the affidavit that stock of shoes lying on wooden racks was badly damaged and claim was submitted before opposite party No.1. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.1 did not settle claim. 11. Complainant also filed affidavit of Tashi Angmo in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that Shri Krishan Gopal proprietor M/s. Shoe Land is husband of deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that fire took place in the shop and entire stock lying in the shop was destroyed in fire. 11. Complainant also filed affidavit of Tashi Angmo in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that Shri Krishan Gopal proprietor M/s. Shoe Land is husband of deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that fire took place in the shop and entire stock lying in the shop was destroyed in fire. There is further recital in the affidavit that in order to liquidate the bank loan deponent and her husband sold their residential house in cheaper price. 12. Complainant also filed affidavit of Rakesh Pandey in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is sole proprietor of M/s. R.D. Pandey. There is further recital in the affidavit that head office is situated at Akhara Market Kullu. There is further recital in the affidavit that that on dated 02.09.2010 deponent received consignment bearing GR No.20121. There is further recital in the affidavit that aforesaid consignment was delivered to M/s Shoe Land vide delivery receipt No. 17406 dated 02.09.2010. 13. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shamshad alias Rashid in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is proprietor of Rashid Corner Islam Ganj Ludhiana and use to supply handmade Punjabi shoes. There is further recital in the affidavit that M/s. Shoe Land Kullu is permanent customer of deponent and deponent used to supply him handmade Punjabi shoes since 2009 as per his requirement against proper bills. There is further recital in the affidavit that during the period from April 2010 to March 2011 deponent had supplied approximately handmade Punjabi shoes to the tune of Rs. 22 lac to M/s. Shoe Land. There is further recital in the affidavit that no person of opposite party No.1 visited deponent''s shop and deponent was not associated in the investigation. 14. Complainant also filed affidavit of Bhupinder Singh in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is proprietor of M/s. Gill Punjabi Shoes Patiala. There is further recital in the affidavit that M/s. Shoe Land Kullu is regular customer of deponent and deponent used to supply to the complainant handmade Punjabi shoes since 2008 as per his requirement against proper bills. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has supplied handmade Punjabi shoes to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2400000/-(Twenty four lac) for the period from April 2010 to April 2011. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has supplied handmade Punjabi shoes to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2400000/-(Twenty four lac) for the period from April 2010 to April 2011. There is further recital in the affidavit that no person of opposite party No.1 visited deponent''s shop and deponent was not associated at any point of time by opposite party No.1. 15. Complainant also filed affidavit of Tarsem Singh in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is proprietor of M/s. Deepak Footwear New Delhi. There is further recital in the affidavit that M/s. Shoe Land Kullu is the customer of deponent and deponent used to send consignment to the complainant through transporter as well as through buses. There is further recital in the affidavit that during the period from April 2010 to March 2011 deponent has supplied shoes costing about Rs. 1500000/- (Fifteen lac) to the complainant against proper bills. There is further recital in affidavit that no person of opposite party No.1 visited deponent''s shop and deponent was not associated at any point of time. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant. 16. Insurance company filed affidavit of Rajesh Sood in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is duly authorized licenced surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent undertook independent preliminary survey of loss and gave his report dated 16.05.2011 Annexure R-3. There is further recital in the affidavit that contents of report are true and correct to the personal knowledge of deponent and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. 17. Insurance company also filed affidavit of D.N. Sharma in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is independent investigator. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent undertook independent investigation and had given his report dated 06.01.2012 Annexure R-7. There is further recital in the affidavit that contents of report are true and correct to the personal knowledge of deponent and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. 18. Insurance company filed affidavit of Randhir Singh in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is independent investigator. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent undertook independent investigation and had given his report on dated 12.12.2011 Annexure R-9. 18. Insurance company filed affidavit of Randhir Singh in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is independent investigator. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent undertook independent investigation and had given his report on dated 12.12.2011 Annexure R-9. There is further recital in the affidavit that contents of report are true and correct to the personal knowledge of deponent and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. 19. Insurance company filed affidavit of Nirvair Singh in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is independent investigator. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent undertook independent investigation and had given his report dated 19.12.2011 Annexure R-8. There is further recital in the affidavit that contents of report are true and correct to the personal knowledge of deponent and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. 20. Insurance company filed affidavit of N.S. Sidhu in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is authorized licensed surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent was appointed by the regional office of New India Assurance Company Chandigarh to conduct the survey and to assess the loss sustained by M/s. Shoe Land in fire incident. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent undertook independent final survey of loss and had given his report dated 26.09.2011 Annexure R-4. There is further recital in the affidavit that contents of report are true and correct to the personal knowledge of deponent and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. 21. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for insured sum of Rs. 3500000/- (Thirty five lac) from the insurance company and on this ground complaint be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that shop of complainant was duly insured with opposite party No.1 vide insurance policy Annexure R-1 w.e.f. 18.06.2010 to 17.06.2011. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 appointed surveyors-cum-loss assessors namely Rajesh Sood, D.N. Sharma, Randhir Singh, Nirvair Singh and N.S. Sidhu. It is proved on record that N.S. Sidhu surveyor-cum-loss assessor has submitted final damaged assessment report annexure R-4. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 appointed surveyors-cum-loss assessors namely Rajesh Sood, D.N. Sharma, Randhir Singh, Nirvair Singh and N.S. Sidhu. It is proved on record that N.S. Sidhu surveyor-cum-loss assessor has submitted final damaged assessment report annexure R-4. N.S. Sidhu surveyor-cum-loss assessor has submitted report that complainant has sustained loss due to fire incident and has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 655852/- (Six lac fifty five thousand eight hundred fifty two). Complainant did not file any counter assessment report of any other surveyor-cum-loss assessor. Final loss assessment report submitted by Shri N.S. Sidhu remained unrebutted on record. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Shri N.S. Sidhu has hostile animus against complainant at any point of time. 22. Complainant has filed affidavits of independent witnesses namely Rakesh Pandey, Shamshad alias Rashid, Bhupinder and Tarsem Singh. The above stated persons have mentioned in their affidavits that they have supplied material to the complainant but they have not mentioned in affidavits actual loss sustained by complainant in fire incident. The above stated witnesses are not eye-witnesses of fire incident and above stated witnesses did not visit the spot where fire incident took place. In the present consumer complaint disputed fact is as to what quantity of loss the complainant had sustained in the fire incident. In view of the fact that above stated witnesses are not the eye-witnesses of fire incident their affidavits are not helpful to the complainant qua assessment of loss sustained by complainant in fire incident. 23. It is well settled law that report of surveyor-cum-loss assessor is important document and should not be brushed aside without valid reasoning and should be given due credence by the insurer. It is also well settled law that report of surveyor could not be ignored without justification. It is also well settled law that report of surveyor could not be set aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence on record that surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely N.S. Sidhu has hostile animus against complainant at any point of time. Complainant did not file any interrogatories to surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely N.S. Sidhu. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC H.C Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. See 2012 (4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. Complainant did not file any interrogatories to surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely N.S. Sidhu. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC H.C Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. See 2012 (4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. See 2009 (3) CPJ 194 NC Nand Kishore Jaiswal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2009 (1) CPC 166 NC Pradeep Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. See 2010 (3) CPJ 401 NC New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Chhabra. See 2010 (1) CpC 696 NC Champa Lal vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 24. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for compensation for mental agony is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has to approach upto the level of Hon''ble National Commission for redressal of his grievances. It is proved on record that insurance company has not released the amount to the complainant as recommended by surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely N.S. Sidhu. Surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely N.S. Sidhu was appointed by the insurance company to assess the loss and State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company could not ignore the report submitted by surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely N.S. Sidhu. 25. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for litigation costs is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has to engage advocates at State Commission and in the Hon''ble National Commission for the redressal of his grievances. Hence State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is entitled for reasonable costs of litigation. 26. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complainant has submitted bogus bills and has submitted exaggerated bills as per report of Rajesh Sood, D.N. Sharma, Randhir Singh, Nirvair Singh and Shri N.S. Sidhu and on this ground complaint be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company has appointed surveyor-cum-loss assessor Shri N.S. Sidhu to assess the loss sustained by complainant and surveyor-cum-loss assessor Shri N.S. Sidhu has personally inspected the place of incident of fire and has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 655852/- (Six lac fifty five thousand eight hundred fifty two). State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company has appointed surveyor-cum-loss assessor Shri N.S. Sidhu to assess the loss sustained by complainant and surveyor-cum-loss assessor Shri N.S. Sidhu has personally inspected the place of incident of fire and has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 655852/- (Six lac fifty five thousand eight hundred fifty two). State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company could not be exonerated from liability and insurance company could not be allowed to ignore the damage assessment report submitted by surveyor-cum-loss assessor Shri N.S. Sidhu appointed by insurance company. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 27. In view of findings upon point No.1 above complaint is partly allowed. It is ordered that opposite party No.1 will pay amount to the tune of Rs. 655852/- (Six lac fifty five thousand eight hundred fifty two) as assessed by surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely Shri N.S. Sidhu alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till realization to the complainant. In addition it is further ordered that opposite party No.1 will pay compensation for mental agony to complainant to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand). In addition it is further ordered that opposite party No.1 will pay litigation costs to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand). Complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed. Surveyor-cum-loss assessor report filed by N.S. Sidhu annexure R-4 dated 26.09.2011 will form part and parcel of order. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Consumer Complaint No.04 of 2012/RBT No.01 of 2018 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of. Misc Application No. : 173/2018 28. Present application filed by applicant for adducing additional evidence i.e. Certificate issued by Excise and Taxation Department Kullu, copies of freight receipts, copies of bills, barrier chits, copy of insurance policy and affidavits of transporters. It is pleaded that aforesaid documents are necessary for adjudication of consumer complaint. Prayer for acceptance of application sought. 29. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-applicant pleaded therein that applicant could not be allowed to fill up lacuna in the evidence. It is pleaded that aforesaid documents are necessary for adjudication of consumer complaint. Prayer for acceptance of application sought. 29. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-applicant pleaded therein that applicant could not be allowed to fill up lacuna in the evidence. It is pleaded that copies of documents sought to be produced were already in the possession of applicant when opportunity was granted to applicant to adduce evidence. It is pleaded that applicant could not be allowed to fill up lacuna at this stage. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 30. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of applicant and non-applicant No.1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. None appeared on behalf of nonapplicant No.2. 31. Following points arise for determination in present application. 1. Whether M.A. No.173/2018 filed by applicant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 32. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that documents mentioned in the application are material documents for the adjudication of consumer complaint and on this ground application be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled only for the damage factually sustained by complainant in fire incident. State Commission is of the opinion that damage sustained by complainant factually in fire incident could be ascertained by affidavits of eye witnesses of fire incident or by way of affidavits of surveyors-cum-loss assessors. State Commission is of the opinion that above said documents are not material for the just decision of the present consumer complaint because above stated documents are not related to damage sustained by complainant factually in fire incident. 33. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicant that additional documents sought to be produced on record are not material documents for the just decision of consumer complaint and on this ground application be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that material question in the present consumer complaint is as to what quantity of damage complainant has sustained in fire incident factually. State Commission is of the opinion that documents sought to be produced by applicant as additional evidence are not material documents for decision of consumer complaint. State Commission is of the opinion that material question in the present consumer complaint is as to what quantity of damage complainant has sustained in fire incident factually. State Commission is of the opinion that documents sought to be produced by applicant as additional evidence are not material documents for decision of consumer complaint. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to allow application filed for adducing evidence because documents mentioned in the application are not related to factual damage sustained by applicant in fire incident. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 34. In view of findings upon point No.1 above present application filed by applicant is dismissed. Observations will not effect merits of consumer complaint in any manner and will be confined strictly for the disposal of application. Application be tagged with the main file after due completion. M.A. No.173/2018 is disposed of.