ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present consumer complaint is filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that complainant is running an Electrical Items shop in the name and style of M/s. Harshil Electricals. It is pleaded that complainant obtained shopkeepers package insurance policy from authorised agent of insurance company. It is pleaded that insurance cover to the tune of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac) was provided by the insurance company. It is further pleaded that premium was also paid to the insurance company and insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016. It is pleaded that shop of complainant caught fire on the intervening night of 07.03.2016 and 08.03.2016. It is pleaded that entire stock of electrical items kept inside the shop was reduced to ashes. It is pleaded that report was also lodged in police station Rohru. It is pleaded that insurance company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor. It is further pleaded that complainant submitted the claim before insurance company but insurance company did not pay the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief for payment of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment. In addition complainant sought payment of Rs. 500000/-(Five lac) as compensation for unfair trade practise and deficiency in service. In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 55000/-(Fifty five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 2. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant is not consumer because complainant has purchased the policy for commercial purpose. It is pleaded that complainant did not submit the required documents. It is admitted that insurance policy was obtained by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac) which was operative w.e.f. 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016. It is further pleaded that complainant was also running Karyana shop and stock of Karyana was insured for a sum of Rs. 1400000/-(Fourteen lac) from Oriental Insurance Company and insurance policy was valid w.e.f. 17.01.2016 to 16.01.2017. It is further pleaded that surveyor has recommended payment of Rs. 342950/-(Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty). It is pleaded that complicated question of law and facts are involved and complainant be relegated to civil court. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 3. It is further pleaded that surveyor has recommended payment of Rs. 342950/-(Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty). It is pleaded that complicated question of law and facts are involved and complainant be relegated to civil court. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 3. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise 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 Ex.C-I in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant obtained shopkeepers package insurance policy from opposite party for a sum of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac). There is recital in affidavit that insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016. There is recital in affidavit that premium was paid to the insurance company. There is recital in affidavit that fire caught in shop on the intervening night of 07.03.2016 and 08.03.2016 and due to fire entire stock of electrical items kept inside the shop reduced to ashes. There is further recital in affidavit that report was lodged in police station Rohru and information was also given to the insurance company. There is recital in affidavit that insurance company appointed surveyor. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance company did not settle the claim. State Commission has perused all annexures filed by complainant carefully. 6. Opposite party filed affidavit of Shri Amit Chawla Area Manager insurance company. There is recital in affidavit that version filed by opposite party along with annexures OP1 to OP5 be treated as part and parcel of evidence. There is recital in affidavit that insurance company appointed surveyor who has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 342950/-(Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty). There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not submit the relevant documents with the insurance company. 7. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Munish Prashar surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent deducted Rs. 7574/-(Seven thousand five hundred seventy four) on account of dead stock and deducted Rs. 10128/-(Ten thousand one hundred twenty eight) on account of salvage and deducted Rs. 18050/- (Eighteen thousand fifty) on account of excess clause. 7. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Munish Prashar surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent deducted Rs. 7574/-(Seven thousand five hundred seventy four) on account of dead stock and deducted Rs. 10128/-(Ten thousand one hundred twenty eight) on account of salvage and deducted Rs. 18050/- (Eighteen thousand fifty) on account of excess clause. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has recommended payment of Rs. 342950/-(Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty). There is further recital in affidavit that surveyor report is annexure-OP-5. 8. Insurance company also filed affidavit of Sh. Raghuvansh B. Mathur. There is recital in affidavit that deponent requested the complainant to supply purchase invoice in order to substantiate her claim. There is recital in affidavit that complainant submitted some documents. There is recital in affidavit that deponent requested firms who had issued bills to verify the bills but only M/s. Mukul Enterprises and M/s. Ambit Electricals Pvt. Ltd. have confirmed the issuance of bills which were supplied to the complainant. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for a sum of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac) along with interest @ 12% per annum from date of filing of complaint till the date of payment is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant has obtained shopkeepers package insurance policy annexure-P-2 from opposite party. As per insurance policy shop was insured for fire and allied perils in the sum of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac). The insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016. Insurance company also received premium to the tune of Rs. 7994/- (Seven thousand nine hundred ninety four) from the complainant. It is proved on record that due to fire in the shop complainant sustained loss. G.D. No.011 dated 03.08.2016 was recorded in police station Rohru District Shimla H.P vide annexure-P4. Even as per report of Fire Department fire occurred in the shop on dated 07.03.2016 and articles kept in the shop were destroyed. Even as per report of Field Kanungo on dated 07.03.2016 complainant has sustained loss of articles kept in the shop due to fire. Complainant also issued legal notice annexure-P9 to the opposite party. 10. Insurance company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor namely Munish Prashar. Surveyor cum loss assessor has recommended loss to the tune of Rs. 342950/- (Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty). Complainant also issued legal notice annexure-P9 to the opposite party. 10. Insurance company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor namely Munish Prashar. Surveyor cum loss assessor has recommended loss to the tune of Rs. 342950/- (Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty). Insurance company also appointed investigator namely Raghuvansh B. Mathur and he has mentioned that bill of M/s. Mukul Enterprises and M/s. Ambit Electricals Pvt. Ltd. were confirmed. Shri Raghuvansh B. Mathur further stated in his affidavit in a positive manner that bills submitted by M/s. Light Electricals and Electronics, M/s. Ambit Electricals Pvt. Ltd. were not confirmed and request was not responded. Shri Raghuvansh B. Mathur has further stated in his affidavit in a positive manner that as per information M/s. S.K Electricals, M/s. Mehak Electricals and M/s. Shubham Electricals did not exist. 11. Complainant did not file affidavit of officials of firm who have issued the bills in order to confirm the issuance of controversial bills. Complainant also did not file counter surveyor cum loss assessor report. Surveyor report submitted by Shri Munish Prashar remained unrebutted on record. 12. Report submitted by Shri Munish Prashar is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. There is no evidence on record that Shri Munish Prashar surveyor has hostile animus against the complainant at any point of time. It is well settled law that report submitted by surveyor cum loss assessor is the substantial piece of evidence. 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 2010 (3) CPJ 401 NC New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Chhabra. See 2009(1) CPC 166 NC Pradeep Kumar vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2010 (1) CPC 696 NC Champa Lal Verma vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. See 2017 (1) CPJ 529 NC Ashish Kumar Jaiswal vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & others. See 2018 (1) CPR 311 NC Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 500000/-(Five lac) on account of unfair trade practise is decided accordingly. See 2018 (1) CPR 311 NC Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 500000/-(Five lac) on account of unfair trade practise is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable compensation for mental agony and harassment from the opposite party because surveyor appointed by insurance company has recommended payment to the tune of Rs. 342950/-(Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty) and there is no evidence on record that insurance company had paid an amount of Rs. 342950/-(Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty) to complainant. It is held that report submitted by surveyor cum loss assessor is binding upon the insurance company and insurance company is legally liable to indemnify the complainant as per surveyor report. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 55000/-(Fifty five thousand) is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is entitled for reasonable litigation costs. It is proved on record that complainant has to engage advocate and has to pay litigation costs. Complainant did not place on record advocate fee certificate in order to assess the fees paid by complainant to learned Advocate. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complainant is not consumer because insurance policy was purchased for commercial purpose and on this ground complaint filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. As per section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 service means service of any description rendered by insurance company. It is held that case of complainant falls within the definition of service as defined under section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is proved on record that insurance company has issued insurance policy and has also received premium from the complainant relating to fire loss. It is held that insurance company is legally liable to indemnify the complainant as per loss assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor appointed by insurance company. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complainant also obtained insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company w.e.f. 17.01.2016 to 16.01.2017 relating to Karyana business and on this ground complaint filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complainant also obtained insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company w.e.f. 17.01.2016 to 16.01.2017 relating to Karyana business and on this ground complaint filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant has obtained another shopkeepers package insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company relating to all stock of Karyana goods, general goods and daily needs goods and also obtained insurance policy for furniture and fixtures and also obtained policy for burglary and house breaking. The policy issued by Oriental Insurance Company was operative w.e.f. 17.01.2016 to 16.01.2017. State Commission is of the opinion that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is under legal obligation to indemnify the loss sustained by complainant qua insurance policy issued by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is held that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has issued independent shopkeepers package insurance policy in favour of complainant and had received premium from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 7994/-(Seven thousand nine hundred ninety four). State Commission is of the opinion that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. could not be exonerated from liability qua policy issued by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complicated facts are involved in the present consumer complaint and complainant be relegated to civil court is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to relegate the complainant to civil court because Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is under legal obligation to indemnify the complainant qua loss assessed by surveyor appointed by insurance company. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that M/s. S.K Electricals, M/s. Mehak Electricals and M/s. Shubham Electricals did not exist as per report of investigator and on this ground complaint filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is under legal obligation to indemnify the complainant as per loss recommended by Surveyor cum loss assessor namely Sh. Munish Prashar. It is held that insurance company could not be allowed to disbelieve the report of its own surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Munish Prashar. 19. State Commission is of the opinion that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is under legal obligation to indemnify the complainant as per loss recommended by Surveyor cum loss assessor namely Sh. Munish Prashar. It is held that insurance company could not be allowed to disbelieve the report of its own surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Munish Prashar. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that M/s. Light Electricals and Electronics and M/s. Ambit Electricals Pvt. Ltd. have not responded qua their bills and on this ground complaint filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is under legal obligation to indemnify the complainant qua loss recommended by surveyor cum loss assessor Shri Munish Prashar appointed by insurance company. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 20. In view of findings upon point No.1 above complaint is partly allowed. It is ordered that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay insurance amount to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 342950/-(Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty) as assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Munish Prashar along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of complaint till entire payment. It is further ordered that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay an amount of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) to complainant for mental agony and harassment. It is further ordered that insurance company shall pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Entire amount shall be paid by insurance company to complainant within thirty days after the receipt of certified copy of order. Other reliefs sought by complainant are declined. Insurance policy issued by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Annexure-P2 and surveyor cum loss assessor report submitted by Sh. Munish Prashar dated 26.10.2016 shall form part and parcel of order. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Complaint is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.