ORDER : Gita Mittal, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 28th of June, 2012 passed by J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu in Complaint No. 2987 title "Bashir Ahmad Malik Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.". While MA No. 282 of 2013 has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd., seeking setting aside of the order dated 28th of June, 2012; MA No. 298 of 2012 has been filed by Bashir Ahmed Malik, the complainant, seeking enhancement of the amount which stands awarded. 2. In as much as these arise out of identical facts and raise similar questions of law, we have taken them together for hearing and adjudication. 3. For expediency, we shall refer to the National Insurance Company as the 'Company' and Bashir Ahmed Malik as the 'Complainant' hereinafter. 4. Factual Narration We note the essential facts giving rise to the present appeals hereafter. 4.1 The complainant obtained a "Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy" effective from 14.32 hours on 12th March, 2005 to the midnight 11th March, 2006 from the Company. The risk assured under this policy was to the tune of Rs. 6.00 lakhs. In as much as the respondents have place reliance on the clause 1 and 8 of the policy, the same may usefully be set down in extenso. The clauses read as follows: "1. THIS Policy shall be voidable in the event of mis-representation, mis-description or nondisclosure of any material particular. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 8. If the claim be in any respect fraudulent, of if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the Insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the willful act, or with the connivance of the Insured, all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited." 4.2 During the night intervening 13th/14th January, 2006, the complainant's mercantile shop, in the rented premises pursuant to a rent agreement, was completely gutted in a fire. 4.3 On 31st of January, 2006, the complainant intimated the Divisional Manager of the Company about the loss to the shop and stocks in the fire. Accordingly, the Company appointed and deputed M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors & Loss Assessors to conduct a survey and loss assessment. 4.3 On 31st of January, 2006, the complainant intimated the Divisional Manager of the Company about the loss to the shop and stocks in the fire. Accordingly, the Company appointed and deputed M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors & Loss Assessors to conduct a survey and loss assessment. M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors & Loss Assessors visited the premises on 10th of February, 2006. By their letter dated 25th of April, 2006, M/s. Sai Consultants called upon the complainant to submit a claim form duly filled; particulars of insurance policy; police report; ownership proof of shop/rent deed; purchase bills for last two years and stock statement/balance sheet. 4.4 A report based on a physical verification was thereafter submitted by the said surveyors only on the 18th of August, 2006 confirming that: (a) the complainant was the sole proprietor of the business which was established in 2001; (b) that all kinds of mercantile was being sold on retail basis which was purchased by the complainant form wholesale market of Jammu, Banihal, Neel and Chamalwas on cash and credit basis as per purchase bills submitted by him; (c) that he had a licence from the Licensing Authority of the business; (d) that the daily sale of the insured range from Rs. 15,200/-; (e) that the complainant was neither an income tax nor sales tax payee, however the insured shop was "a leading shop in the area and doing the business in the different Karyana and Hosiery items efficiently." 4.5 In the fire of devastating nature, the four shops including the shop of the complainant with their stocks were completely gutted and raised to the ground. 4.6 A police report was registered as FIR No. 3 dated 14th of January, 2006. 4.7 All stocks of trade stood completely burnt to ashes and destroyed beyond recognition while some stocks were buried under debris in damaged condition depicting a total loss. 4.8 The double storey building housing the shops in which the stocks were lying was completely burnt with side walls and roof collapsed on the floor internally. 4.9 Furniture and fixtures were totally burnt and rendered to ashes. 4.8 The double storey building housing the shops in which the stocks were lying was completely burnt with side walls and roof collapsed on the floor internally. 4.9 Furniture and fixtures were totally burnt and rendered to ashes. 4.10 Additionally, in the report dated 18th of August, 2006, M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors & Loss Assessors had informed the value at risk based on a scrutiny of the Balance Sheet and Trading cum Profit and Loss Account, which had been submitted by the Aggarwal Hardeep & Associates Chartered Accountants. The Surveyors had made the following assessment. Value of stocks physically present at the time loss as per the balance sheet by the C.A Rs. 5,09840.00 Value of furniture/fixture (as per estimate submitted by the insured) Rs. 31,600.00 Less 5% on account of dead stocks Rs. 25,492.00 Less 50% depreciation on furniture Rs.18.800.00 Value at Risk Rs.5.00.148.00 Sum nsured Rs. 6.00.000.00 (Emphasis supplied) 4.11 So far as the assessment of the claim was concerned, M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors & Loss Assessors with regard to stocks owned as follows: Value of stocks damaged/burnt goods Rs. 5,09,540.00 Less 5% on account of dead stocks Rs.25,492.00 Less 25% for not maintaining proper record, Vouchers & account Rs. 1,27,460.00 Less on account of salvage value of partially damaged goods lumsum Rs. 15,000.00 4.12 So far as the assessment of claim of furniture is concerned, M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors & Loss Assessors had refused to accept the complainant estimation at the loss of Rs. 31,600.00, assessing the same as follow: Amount of loss as per the estimate duly scrutinized Rs. 21,600.00 Less 50 % depreciation Rs. 10.800.00 Assessment of loss Rs. 500.00 Net Assessment of furniture Rs. 10.300.00 Assessment on account of stocks Rs. 3.41.888.00 Assessment on account of furniture Rs.10300.00 Total Assessment of Loss Rs.3,52.188.00 Less Encess Clause Rs.10.000.00 Net Assessment of Loss Rs.342.188.00 Net Amount Assessed Rs.342.188.00 4.13 This report was examined by the Divisional Manager of the Company who issued a communication dated 5th of September, 2006 to M/s. Sai Consultants, Surveyors, Jammu noting that the assessment and the valuation of closing stock were based on the report of Chartered Accountant and seeking a clarification of the bills for the figure of Rs. 5,09,840.00 being a figure disclosed by the proprietor and therefore lacking reason and logic. 5,09,840.00 being a figure disclosed by the proprietor and therefore lacking reason and logic. Clarification was sought with regard to the total purchases made for the last one year; total sales made for one year; average monthly stocks; for the estimate stock holding for two months; bank account as the stock position as per turnover basis and the standing of the ship as per location of the market. 4.14 Mr. D.S Chouhan, ld. Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that a reminder dated 12th of October, 2006 had been issued to the said Surveyor Reference is made to the revised assessment finally submitted by M/s. Sai Consultants under cover of its letter dated 11th of December, 2006. In this report, net assessment of the loss on account of stock was brought down to Rs. 2,05,508.00. The assessment on account of furniture was maintained at Rs. 10,300.00, while the total net amount assessed was revised to Rs. 2,05,508.00. Interestingly, a list and details of the one hundred and twenty bill for the purchase of stocks submitted by the complainant for the period January, 2005 to January, 2006 was enclosed, with this revised report. 4.15 The Insurance Company appears to have been dissatisfied with even this assessment. It then appointed M/s. Shree Surveyors and instructed it to verify the bills which pertained to the account of the complainant. M/s. Shree Surveyors claims to have submitted a bills report dated 9th of April, 2007, ostensibly after visiting the shops that supplied goods to the complainant. According to M/s. Shree Surveyors, it had visited some of the shopkeepers, namely M/s. Janta Glass House, M/s. Usman Electrical & Electronics, M/s. Mani Ram Gupta, M/s. B.S Enterprises, Malik Book Centre, M/s. Abhi Bartan Store where they were informed that they had issued blank bills to the complainant; that though the bills were from bill books pertaining to them, however, the bills had not been issued by the shopkeeper. 4.16 The verification report dated 9th of April, 2007 notes that the bills of Nazir Ahmed and Sons were not verified by it for the reason that it was difficult to reach this enterprise in a car because of the terrible condition of the road besides the area being highly militancy infected. 4.16 The verification report dated 9th of April, 2007 notes that the bills of Nazir Ahmed and Sons were not verified by it for the reason that it was difficult to reach this enterprise in a car because of the terrible condition of the road besides the area being highly militancy infected. 4.17 Upon receipt of the report dated 9th of April, 2007, from M/s. Shree Surveyors, discrediting all the bills submitted by the claimants, the Insurance Company, by a letter dated 16th of August, 2007, informed the Claimant to the effect that the competent authority has found the purchase bills submitted by the claimant as fake; that the complainant had tried to cheat the company by producing fictitious purchase bills for getting the insurance claim which was violative of condition Nos. 1 and 8 of the "Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy" and therefore has repudiated the claim which has been submitted by the complainant. 4.18 The complainant objected to the allegations that the bills were fake or that he had tried to cheat the insurance company and called upon the company to settle the claim failing which he would seek legal redressal in court of law. 4.19 Aggrieved by this repudiation, the complainant filed a Complaint being No. 2987 on 2nd of May, 2008 before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the Consumer Disputes Redressal Act, seeking an award of Rs. 7,67,602.00 and costs of litigation along with interest @ 15% per annum till realization of the amount. 4.20 The Insurance Company contested the claim on the above factual averments placing staunch reliance on the verification report of M/s. Shree Surveyors and also clause 1 and 8 of the insurance policy as above. 4.21 Before the Commission, the Complainant lead evidence on affidavit of himself; Mr. Ghulam Hussain and Mohd. Yousuf. Despite repeated opportunities, the Insurance Company failed to lead evidence. On 18th of March, 2011, the Company was given last and final opportunity to lead evidence. They did not appear on the next date of hearing and vide order dated 19th April, 2011, the case was fixed for final arguments. On 25th of November, 2011, the Insurance Company yet again sought time to file application for permission to file affidavit which was granted. Yet no such affidavit was filed by the Insurance Company. They did not appear on the next date of hearing and vide order dated 19th April, 2011, the case was fixed for final arguments. On 25th of November, 2011, the Insurance Company yet again sought time to file application for permission to file affidavit which was granted. Yet no such affidavit was filed by the Insurance Company. It again chose not to appear before the Commission and again vide order dated 5th January, 2012, the case was adjourned for final hearing. On 8th of February, 2012, the insurance company again sought time to file affidavits. It was finally only on the 15th of February, 2012 that affidavits of Shri Ajay Mathu, proprietor of M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors; Narinder Pal Gondi, proprietor of M/s. Shree Surveyors and Shri Arun Kausal, Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. were filed. 4.22 On a consideration of the material placed by the parties, by the Award dated 28th of June, 2012, the learned Commission has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,0,5508.00 on account of indemnification of loss to the insured property and a further amount of Rs. 75,000.00 on account of loss of profit and compensation for inconvenience, bringing the total Award in favour of the complainant against the Insurance Company to Rs. 2,80,508.00. 5 Contentions of the Complainant 5.1 The complainant has assailed the award for the reason that the amount is much lower amount than the loss; that the insurance policy granted barely six months before the fire had, after physical verification assessed and insured the value of stocks at Rs. 5,40000.00; while the furniture and fixtures and fittings stood assessed at Rs. 60,000.00. This assessment was effected after the inspection of the shop and verification of the stocks, furniture, fixtures and fittings. Reliance stands placed by the complainant on the assessment and balance sheet prepared by Aggarwal Hardeep & Associates Chartered Accountants, who assessed the goods and furniture had been lost at Rs. 5,87,602.00. It is further contended that the complainant had established the loss by way of cogent evidence which had not been rebutted. 5.2 It has been submitted by Mr. R.K.S Thakur, learned counsel for the claimant that there was no warrant for M/s. Sai Consultant in its report rejecting the claim of the complainant for the loss suffered on account of furniture and fixtures or the revision of the assessment. 5.2 It has been submitted by Mr. R.K.S Thakur, learned counsel for the claimant that there was no warrant for M/s. Sai Consultant in its report rejecting the claim of the complainant for the loss suffered on account of furniture and fixtures or the revision of the assessment. It is submitted that despite the inspection of physical report of complete loss of furniture/fittings, there is no justification at all for effecting 50% depreciation thereon of estimating the amount of loss at Rs. 21,600.00 and calculating 50% depreciation thereon of Rs. 10,800.00 and for reaching the net assessment of furniture of Rs. 10,300.00. 5.3 Mr. Thakur challenges the appointment of M/s. Shree Surveyors as unwarranted and inexplicable. The Complainant has assailed the verification report as baseless, false and completely unreliable. 6. Contentions of the Insurance Company 6.1 On the other hand, the Insurance Company has assailed the Award primarily contending that the complainant had submitted fraudulent and fake bills, establishing the attempt by the complainant of unjust enrichment justifying the repudiation and rejection of the claim by the Insurance Company in view of conditions No. 1 and 8 of "Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy". It is therefore contended that the impugned Award dated 20th of June, 2012 was patently illegal and unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the law, narrating it being satisfied. 7. Discussion 7.1 We have heard Mr. D.S Chouhan, learned counsel for the insurance company and Mr. R.K.S Thakur, learned counsel for the complainant at length in the two appeals, who have carefully taken us through the record of the Commission. 7.2 Certain essential and material facts which are admitted by the parties first deserve to be first noted. The issuance of the insurance policy and valuation of the stocks of the complainant, fitting and fixtures therein are not disputed. The insurance company also does dispute the fact that in the devastating fire in the shop of the complainant in the intervening night of 13th/14th January, 2006, the entire stocks, fittings, furniture were completely gutted, resulting in a total loss thereof. 7.3 There is no dispute that the complainant had a valid insurance policy and had duly paid premium in respect thereof. 7.4 In his evidence, Mr. 7.3 There is no dispute that the complainant had a valid insurance policy and had duly paid premium in respect thereof. 7.4 In his evidence, Mr. Ajay Mathu, the sole proprietor of Sai Consultants has admitted that a balance sheet was compiled by M/s. Aggarwal Hardeep & Associates Chartered Accountants from the records produced by the complainant who had assessed the value of the loss at Rs. 5,87,602.00. 7.5 M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors & Loss Assessors in the report dated 18th of August, 2006 have mentioned that "the total amount of duplicate purchase bills do tally with the figure mentioned in the balance sheet. This shows that the balance sheet can be taken as true reflection of the insured's business during the period of its inception." 7.6 M/s. Sai Consultants Surveyors & Loss Assessors however rejected the insured's claims to the effect that stocks worth Rs. 6,93,685.00 were present in the insured shop holding that these quantities are some-what exaggerated and the exact stocks present in the insured's shop at the time of fire have been worked out on the basis of balance sheet prepared by the Chartered Accountant as the value of stocks at risk as on date of loss was not possible by preparing the inventory of the stocks due to the reasons cited in the report which included the complete loss of damage on account of fire resulting in everything having being burnt completely. We find that the information sought by the Divisional Manager by letter dated 5th of September, 2006 was really farfetched given the fact that it was an admitted position that the shop and stocks were completely burnt. It needs to be borne in mind that the complainant was a small time kiryana shop keeper in the village of Ara Chamalwas. The same is evidenced by the nature of mercantile which was being sold included not only grocery items but hosiery etc. It is evident that the business of the complainant was that of a typical retailer in the hilly area wherein small articles/food items of daily use to hosiery items are to be found in a single shop. The same is evidenced by the nature of mercantile which was being sold included not only grocery items but hosiery etc. It is evident that the business of the complainant was that of a typical retailer in the hilly area wherein small articles/food items of daily use to hosiery items are to be found in a single shop. 7.7 The revised estimate submitted by M/s. Sai Consultants on 11th of December, 2006 is premised on "experience and general practice" of the Surveyors and is based on a presumption that "such types of shops in hilly areas are usually keeping stocks worth of about two months purchases". This report does not make any reference to any documentary evidence or the basis of the report other than presumptions. It makes no reference to the information received from either the complainant or the Chartered Accountant. 7.8 The rejection of the claim, however, is not premised on the Surveyors' Report submitted by Sai Consultants but on the Verification Report dated 9th of April, 2007 submitted by M/s. Shree Surveyor To prove this report, the Insurance Company has placed an affidavit of Shri Narinder Pal Gondi, proprietor of M/s. Shree Surveyors on record, who again has vaguely stated that he has visited the shops and submitted a Verification Report of bills dated 9th of April, 2007. It is to be noted that in the report dated 9th of April, 2007, Mr. Gondi vaguely refers to having met "incharge of the shop, employee and the proprietor of the shop " without stating any names thereof. It would appear that the efforts have been made to cobble together some material so as to justify the repudiation of the claim. 7.9 None of the shopkeepers regarding which M/s. Shree Surveyors had submitted the report dated 9th of April, 2007 stated that the complainant did not purchase goods from them 7.10 On the contrary, in its report Shree Surveyors have recorded the statement by the incharge of M/s. B.S Enterprises, that the claimant Bashir Ahmed Malik used to deal with them. M/s. Abhi Bartan Store is alleged to have stated that the complainant requested for blank bills for onwards submission to the banks. M/s. Abhi Bartan Store is alleged to have stated that the complainant requested for blank bills for onwards submission to the banks. 7.11 The report dated 9th of April, 2007 of M/s. Shree Surveyors does not give either the names of the representatives who visited the shops which had supplied goods to the complainant, or the date of the visit at all. It gives no details of the persons/incharge proprietors of the shops visited. 7.12 It is to be noted that a large number of the bills purchased submitted by the claimant and enumerated by M/s. Sai Consultants, had been issued by M/s. Mohd. Yousaf and Sons from Chamalwas and M/s. Nazeer Ahmed and Sons, two firms supplying goods to the Complainant. So far as the verification of the bills from Mohd. Yousaf and Sons is concerned, M/s. Shree Surveyors has stated that the incharge of the shop confirmed the issuance of the bills. He even provided a duly signed and stamped statement confirming the sales. It is absolutely unfortunate that despite this confirmation, it was the opinion of Shri Surveyors that the bills were fake "because of the reason that the amount of the sale is very much on the higher side as compared with the stocks available with the shop as clearly depicted from the photographs arrayed by us at the time of visit of the shop ". 7.13 There is no explanation as to why or how multiple shopkeepers would issue blank bills to the complainant. Shree Surveyors does not give any explanation from any shopkeeper for doing so. It is incomprehensible and unbelievable that a prudent shopkeeper would give away blank bills to any other trader, knowing that it could be misused. The report of Shree Surveyors ought not to be accepted for this reason. 7.14 The shop of the complainant was completely gutted in the fire and stocks were completely damaged in the fire in the night intervening 13th/14th January, 2006. M/s. Shree Surveyors rests its opinion given more than one year after the fire on not finding the same amount of stocks as claimed to be there at the time of the fire. The verification of the bills was being effected in April, 2007. M/s. Shree Surveyors rests its opinion given more than one year after the fire on not finding the same amount of stocks as claimed to be there at the time of the fire. The verification of the bills was being effected in April, 2007. Certainly having suffered such a tremendous loss, the petty shopkeeper in a small village in the hills could not be expected to be maintaining the same standard or level of affluence as he was doing so before the fire. Thus, this reason for disbelieving the confirmation of the bills is completely unfounded and cannot be accepted. 7.15 The second reason for discrediting the confirmation of the bills is the inability of the incharge of shop of M/s. Mohd. Yousaf and Sons to produce the duplicate copies of the bills for the reason that the same were lying in the residence of the owner which was in a far flung area and it was difficult to bring the duplicates there and then at the time of visit for verification. The representatives of M/s. Mohd. Yousaf and Sons did not refuse to produce the duplicate bills. Had the verification by M/s. Shree Surveyors been honest and sincere, they should have informed the firm about the verification exercise, could have given notice of the visit in advance and sought production of duplicates or they should have revisited the premises of Mohd. Yousuf and Sons after fixation of a date and time for production of duplicate copies. 7.16 In addition M/s. Shree Surveyors also did not verify the large number of bills regarding purchases made by the Complainant from Nazir Ahmed and Sons. They admittedly did not even bother to reach the business premises of this enterprises for the reason that the road thereto was in a damaged condition and that this concern was located in a highly militancy infested area. To justify their failure to verify the bills, in its report M/s. Shri Surveyors has simply noted that few local people living in Neel and nearby area stated that shop of Nazir Ahmed and Sons was permanently closed about six months back. No particulars of these persons are forthcoming. This position is completely unacceptable and certainly, there is no warrant for disbelieving the bills produced by the claimant which pertain to Nazir Ahmed and Sons. No particulars of these persons are forthcoming. This position is completely unacceptable and certainly, there is no warrant for disbelieving the bills produced by the claimant which pertain to Nazir Ahmed and Sons. M/s. Shree Surveyors never called upon the Complainant to explain any points of doubt or suspicion. 7.17 In this regard, it would be useful to extract the detailed discussion made by learned Commission on a consideration of the bills placed by the Complainant and the evidence led by the parties thereon, especially the report of M/s. Shree Surveyors. On this aspect, we may also usefully extract the following discussion from the impugned order: "The only contentious part relates to verification report purported to have been furnished to respondent insurance company by M/s. Shree Surveyors, Jammu, which alongwith a statement of its proprietor namely Shri Narinder Pal Goundi is on the file and perhaps the only document requiring detailed analysis to conclude the matter in hand. In his statement the said surveyor states that verification of bills submitted by complainant to insurance company confirm that all of them were fake. According to his verification report however only 6 out of 128 bills furnished by complainant have been positively denied by the persons to whom they have been attributed while as regarding rest of bills report does not appears to be as crisp. In fuller detail the report dated 9.4.2007 reveals that while bills No. 901 to 911 attributed to M/s. Janta Glass House and numbers 119, 166 and 199 attributed to M/s. Usman Electrical have been denied by alleged makers even while duplicates thereof in case of Usman Electricals have been found to be blank without any explanatory reasons, the bills attributed to M/s. Mani Ram have not been verified due to alleged shifting of his business to Ramban way back in 1992-93 who has been assumed to be running a sweet shop and as such incapable of issuing the bills attributed to him. In case of bills attributed to Ms B.S Enterprises, Ms Malik Boot Centre and Ms Abhey Bartan Store the sales men attending these business concerns at the time of verification are stated to have informed the surveyor that they issued blank bills forms to the complainant on his asking In so far as the bills attributable to Ms Mohd. In case of bills attributed to Ms B.S Enterprises, Ms Malik Boot Centre and Ms Abhey Bartan Store the sales men attending these business concerns at the time of verification are stated to have informed the surveyor that they issued blank bills forms to the complainant on his asking In so far as the bills attributable to Ms Mohd. Yousuf & Sons largest in number as per the list of bills appended with survey report of Ms Sai Consultants have been confirmed by the business concern. That being so, out of 8 business concerns to whom the bills furnished by complainant to respondent company are attributed only two have positively denied having issued 3 bills each, 6 in total, while as those pertaining to two firms namely Ms Mani Ram Gupta and Ms Nazir Ahmad have not been verified due to the reasons mentioned in the report. The largest chunk attributed to Ms Mohammed Yousuf stands confirmed while as Ms B.S Enterprises, Malik Boot Centre and Abhey Bartan Store are reported to have issued blank bills forms to the complainant. That being the situation the statement that of Mr. Narinder Paul Gandu, proprietor of Shree Surveyors that all the bills furnished by complainant were found fake and fraudulent appears too sweeping besides being incorrect. As a matter of fact positively most of the bills have been owned by the originator, regarding some a doubt has crept in due to alleged issuance of blank bill forms which could have been confirmed or negated only by producing those business concerns or the concerned persons thereof in the witness box which has not been done, in absence whereof inferring adverse circumstances against the complainant may not be fair for the simple reason that what we are considering currently is a consumer grievance where mere doubt would not operate against the consumer." (Emphasis supplied) 7.18 We agree with the above observations of the ld. Commission that the insurance company should have produce the authors of the verification report in the witness box to enable the complainant to effectively challenge the report. 7.19 The ld. Commission has taken a realistic view that some of the bills furnished by the complainant did not appear to be genuine and that but for this reason alone, the bills confirmed by the originator could not be brushed as had been done by the Insurance Company. 7.19 The ld. Commission has taken a realistic view that some of the bills furnished by the complainant did not appear to be genuine and that but for this reason alone, the bills confirmed by the originator could not be brushed as had been done by the Insurance Company. The learned Commission has noted the vagaries and weakness of human nature and over reaction to cement the claim but that should not resulted in genuine part being rejected as has been done by the insurance company. 7.20 It is also necessary to consider the evidence which was lead by the complainant before the Commission to establish the claim. Apart from examining himself, the complainant Bashir Ahmed Malik filed an affidavit of evidence of Ghulam Hussain who was landlord of his shop. This witness confirmed the extent of business as also the fact that complainant was buying purchasing goods from Banihal wholesale shopkeepers including Mohd. Yousuf of Chamalwas. This witness stated that the value of the kiryana goods and provision store of the complainant was more than six lakhs. 7.21 Mohd. Yousuf who was doing the wholesale business of kiryana under the name of Mohd. Yousuf and Sons for the last fifteen years, has also sworn an affidavit confirming that the Complainant was buying goods form his shop; that he had issued the bills in respect of the goods sold to the complainant in the year 2005 and January, 2006 and proved the issuance of the bills submitted by the Complainant. This witness has also confirmed the loss in the devastating fire in January, 2006 to the shop of the complainant and that he had also physically visited the damaged shop. This witness had explained the issuance of the duplicate bills in respect of the goods supplied by him in settle the insurance claim. 7.22 So far as the visit of M/s. Shree Surveyors personnel is concerned, Mohd. Yousuf has stated in his affidavit that one person along with a lady came to his shop claiming to be belonging to the Tax Department and queried as to whether he has issued duplicate bills to the Complainant. Mohd. Yousuf has clearly stated that he verified the purchases made by the complainant and also issuance of duplicate bills. It is in the evidence of Mohd. Mohd. Yousuf has clearly stated that he verified the purchases made by the complainant and also issuance of duplicate bills. It is in the evidence of Mohd. Yousuf that he had provided the bill books to these persons and that these persons had verified the duplicate copies of the bill books which were available from him. They had confirmed the correctness of the duplicate bills. It was only later that it was disclosed that the person making the enquiries was a surveyor appointed by the insurance company for assessment of the loss. 7.23 Mohd. Yousuf has deposed that he had visited the shop of the complainant on a number of occasions and found his shop full of saleable goods and that in his estimation the shop had the capacity to hold goods of more than rupees seven lakhs. 7.24 Most importantly, Mohd. Yousuf has clearly stated that he was in possession of the bill books which he could produce if directed by the Court. The Insurance Company made no request to cross examine this witness nor did it seek production of all these documents on record. Clearly the rejection of the bills of Mohd. Yousuf by M/s. Shree Surveyors is without any basis and justification. 7.25 We also find that even if the report of M/s. Shree Surveyor was to be accepted, according to Mohd. Yousuf, the surveyors were representing themselves to the shopkeepers as being representatives of the Tax Department. Clearly the small time shopkeepers from the hilly areas who have denied issuance of the duplicate bills would have done so out of the apprehensions of getting embroiled in disputes with the Income Tax authorities. 7.26 Furthermore, the submission therein that "all the bills produced by the complainant were fake and fraudulent", is also not supported by the report dated 9th of April, 2007 which itself states that M/s. Mohd. Yousaf and Sons had confirmed issuance of most of the bills which have been produced by the complainant. The report also states that the surveyor admittedly made no effort to visit or verify the bills of Nazir Ahmed and Sons. 7.27 In the present case, there is one important aspect of the matter which requires to be given attention to. Yousaf and Sons had confirmed issuance of most of the bills which have been produced by the complainant. The report also states that the surveyor admittedly made no effort to visit or verify the bills of Nazir Ahmed and Sons. 7.27 In the present case, there is one important aspect of the matter which requires to be given attention to. It is the fact that barely six months before the fire at the time of issuance of insurance policy, which is done after the inspection of the premises and verification of all the stocks, the insurance company had issued a policy of six lakhs which included stocks valued at Rs. 5,40,000.00 and furniture at Rs. 60,000.00. It is also an established position, and which is not disputed by the insurance company even before us, that in the devastating fire in the night of intervening 13th/14th January, 2006 the entire shop was completely gutted and destroyed the furniture, fixtures reduced to debris and the stocks completely lost. 7.28 It is necessary to bear in mind that it is an established and admitted position that in the devastating fire, the fixtures, fittings and furniture and stocks not only of the complainant, but also of the three other shopkeepers, were completely damaged. In this background, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that paper records of the complainant's business would also have been completely destroyed. Therefore, there would be nothing suspicious about the efforts made by the complainant to obtain duplicate bills. 7.29 The Insurance Company has not doubted the Balance Sheet submitted by Aggrawal Hardeep & Associates Chartered Accountant. It has not faulted the same in any manner at all. The claim of the complainant is supported by this Balance Sheet. M/s. Sai Consultants has not only accepted the correctness of this statement. The first report dated 18th of August, 2006 of M/s. Sai Consultants is based on a physical inspection of the involved shops of the complainant at Ara Chamalwas and makes detailed analysis premised on not only the documentation made available by the complainant but on a physical assessment of the extent of this business as well as the estimation of the daily sale and verification inquiries from the locals. The physical inspection reported that the double storey building in which the stocks were lying, was completely burnt and with side walls and roof collapsed on the floor internally and also that the furniture and fixtures were totally burnt and rendered to ashes. So far as the food items are concerned, they had been polluted and contaminated and lost their original texture rendering them unfit for human consumption and has been declared as total loss as per the Food Adulteration Act of the State. The other stocks were noted as depicting a total loss. 7.30 It has been contended before us that there is no justification for the direction of the Insurance Company to M/s. Sai Consultants to review its first report or the appointment of second surveyor. In this regard we may usefully referred to judicial pronouncement report at MANU/SC/0935/2016 : AIR 2016 SC 4021 ; M/s. Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein at paras 18 to 20, the Supreme Court has placed reliance on prior precedents and held as follows: "18. Coming to the merits of the claim, we find that the surveyor had given a report that there was a loss. He had also quantified it. The State Commission after elaborate discussion has held as follows:- "The surveyor also confirmed in their reports, the shortage/loss of AAAC due to pilferage during transit and estimated the loss as per Ex. A12. This shortage was also confirmed by Katigorah police as per Ex. A13 and as reiterated earlier by the Tage Over Certificate, Ex. A19. Taking into consideration that the surveyors appointed by the insurance company have completed their investigation and submitted their reports and thereafter an investigator was appointed on 16-4-1998 without any valid reasons. It is held by the National Commission in 1 (2004) CPJ 10 (NC) in Gammon India Ltd., v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. that 'Report of first surveyor not accepted, second surveyor appointed-Appointment of second surveyor not explained - Deficiency in service proved - Report of first surveyor upheld' and the investigator in the instant case submitted his report on 28-12-1998 i.e. almost 8 months after his appointment. Taking into consideration all the above submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/complainant was able to establish that there was shortage/damage to the consignment which was given to second respondent for transportation." 19. Taking into consideration all the above submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/complainant was able to establish that there was shortage/damage to the consignment which was given to second respondent for transportation." 19. Though the said aspect has not been gone into by the National Commission, yet we find, the findings recorded by the State Commission are absolutely justified and tenable in law being based on materials brought on record in such a situation we do not think it appropriate that an exercise of remit should be carried out asking the National Commission to have a further look at it. In any case, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the National Commission is a limited one. We may hasten to add that to satisfy ourselves, we have perused the surveyor's report and scrutinized the judgment and order passed by the State Commission in this regard and we are completely satisfied that the determination made by it is absolutely impeccable. 20. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order passed by the National Commission in the batch of appeals is set aside. We have been apprised that 50% of the amount was deposited and the appellant has withdrawn the said amount. The balance amount along with interest, as directed by the State Commission, shall be paid by the insurance company within four months from today. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.31 The Insurance Company has not advanced a single reason as to why the first report of the first surveyor was not accepted and the review required or second surveyor appointed. Even the first surveyor appointed shortly after the appointed time three months after the completion submitted the report in almost more than seven months after the incident upon 18th of August, 2006. With the intention of obtaining a lower assessment of the damage, this surveyor was first required by the Insurance Company to revise the first report which he did almost eleven months after the incident on 11th of December, 2006. Even this was not palatable to the Insurance Company which, without any justification, appointed M/s. Shree Surveyors extensively for verification of bills primarily to discredit the claim. Even this was not palatable to the Insurance Company which, without any justification, appointed M/s. Shree Surveyors extensively for verification of bills primarily to discredit the claim. 7.32 In view of the above, we find substance in the challenge to the revised assessment report forwarded under cover of letter dated 11th of December, 2006 by M/s. Sai Consultants for the reason that same is based on "experience and general practice" and completely on surmises and conjectures. There was no warrant for the revision of the assessment effected by the report dated 18th of August, 2006. This report has been obtained behind the back of the complainant and has been discussed at length above. As noted above, even if the report was to be accepted, only a miniscule number of bills submitted by the complainant could be doubted as against the verified bills of Mohd. Yousuf and Sons. Additionally, no effort was made to verify the bills of Nazir Ahmed and Sons. For the detailed reasons and observations made by us heretofore, the Verification Report of bills in the report dated 9th of April, 2007 cannot be accepted. 7.33 Before us Mr. Thakur has strongly canvassed for payment of interest on the awarded amount. It is noteworthy that in the present case, the complainant sought payment of the claim with regard to the fire which occurred in the intervening night of 13th/14th January, 2006 and he has been denied the amount of the claim unjustifiably for the period of more than 13 year Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported at (2011) 11 SCC 269 ; M/s. Ruby (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., it is contended by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant would be entitled to interest on the amount of award which is found to be payable to him. Our attention is drawn to para 26 of this pronouncement wherein the Supreme Court has held competence of the forum in exercise of jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act to do so. We extract para 26 of the judgment extenso which reads thus: "26. Our attention is drawn to para 26 of this pronouncement wherein the Supreme Court has held competence of the forum in exercise of jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act to do so. We extract para 26 of the judgment extenso which reads thus: "26. It is correct that the Act does not contain any provision for grant of interest, but on account of catena of cases of this Court that interest can still be awarded, taking recourse to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to do complete justice between the parties. We accordingly do so. This principle is based upon justice, equity and good conscience, which would certainly authorize us to grant interest, otherwise, the very purpose of awarding compensation to the Appellant would be defeated. We accordingly deem it fit to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing the complaint till it is actually paid." Therefore, even though the Consumer Disputes Redressal Act does not contain a specific statutory provision enabling a direction to pay interest on the awarded amount, on the application of principles of justice, equity and good conscience and on the analogy of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court has the jurisdiction to grant interest on the awarded amount. It is directed that the above amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint by the complainant. 7.34 The claimant has disputed that there was no fraudulent act on his part which would enable the insurance company to avoid its liability under the policy. In support of the submissions, Mr. Thakur has placed reliance on the pronouncement of Supreme Court reported at (2001) 6 SCC 534 ; Dhurandhar Parsad Singh Vs. Jai Parkash University, wherein the Court has held as follows: "20. Thus the expressions void and voidable have been subject matter of consideration on innumerable occasions by courts. The expression void has several facets. One type of void acts, transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void and for avoiding the same no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. The expression void has several facets. One type of void acts, transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void and for avoiding the same no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. The other type of void act, e.g., may be transaction against a minor without being represented by a next friend. Such a transaction is good transaction against the whole world. So far the minor is concerned, if he decides to avoid the same and succeeds in avoiding it by taking recourse to appropriate proceeding the transaction becomes void from the very beginning. Another type of void act may be which is not a nullity but for avoiding the same a declaration has to be made. Voidable act is that which is a good act unless avoided, e.g., if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated, it is voidable as apparent state of affairs is real state of affairs and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove it. If it is proved that the document is forged and fabricated and a declaration to that effect is given a transaction becomes void from the very beginning There may be a voidable transaction which is required to be set aside and the same is avoided from the day it is so set aside and not any day prior to it. In cases, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would be obviously voidable ". In the above facts and circumstances, it has to be concluded that clauses 1 and 8 of the Insurance policy were not attracted and the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company was unjust and not warranted. The Insurance Company has taken an unrealistic stand overlooking established facts before it. 8. Conclusion 8.1 It is an admitted position that the loss of the insured stocks and fitting and furniture was unforeseen and accidental in nature. The Insurance Company has taken an unrealistic stand overlooking established facts before it. 8. Conclusion 8.1 It is an admitted position that the loss of the insured stocks and fitting and furniture was unforeseen and accidental in nature. We find substance in the grievance of the complainant that it was only in order to defeat his valid claim that the insurance company kept making reference and referred the matter twice to M/s. Shri Surveyors and despite the revised report has been submitted by it, without any justification appointed the second surveyor M/s. Shree Surveyors for verification of the bills. At no point of time was any query put to the complainant about the bills. The revised report of M/s. Sai Consultants and M/s. Shree Surveyors are unacceptable and rejected. 8.2 In this background, so far as the valuation and assessment in the first report dated 18th August, 2006 of M/s. Sai Consultants was concerned, the deduction of 5% on account of dead stocks or the amount of Rs. 25,492.00 as well as assessment of salvage at Rs. 500.00 is contrary to the inspection report and the observations of Sai Consultants. Furthermore, given the fact that there is total loss of not only stocks and furniture but that even the building had collapsed, it is absolutely unfair to have suggested deduction of 25% from the value of stocks damaged for not maintaining proper record, vouchers and account and assessing deduction on this count of the amount of Rs. 1,27,460.00. 8.3 In as much as stocks as well as furniture stood burnt, certainly all records vouchers and accounts which would have been maintained in the shop would have also got burnt. There is no justification therefore, for permitting this deduction of Rs. 1,27,460.00 from the value of stocks. 8.4 In this background, so far as net assessment on account of stocks is concerned, the value of the stocks damaged/burnt goods has to be accepted as Rs. 5,09840.00 as assessed in the report dated 18th of August, 2006 without the aforesaid deduction. If we accept as permissible deduction on account of salvage value of partially damaged goods as assessed by M/s. Sai Consultants at a lumpsum of Rs. 15,000.00, the net assessment on account of stocks would be Rs. 509840.00 minus 15000.00 which would come to figure of Rs. 4,94,840.00. If we accept as permissible deduction on account of salvage value of partially damaged goods as assessed by M/s. Sai Consultants at a lumpsum of Rs. 15,000.00, the net assessment on account of stocks would be Rs. 509840.00 minus 15000.00 which would come to figure of Rs. 4,94,840.00. So far as assessment on account of loss of furniture is concerned, M/s. Sai Consultants has valued the furniture/fixtures at Rs. 31,600.00, keeping in view the inspection at the time of loss at the lowest market value prevailing in the area. A deduction was made keeping in view the quality of wood in the area and the amount of loss estimated at Rs. 21,600.00. On this valuation, Sai Consultants has recommended the deduction of depreciation to the tune of 50% which have been assessed at Rs. 10,800.00. Further the deduction of value of salvage which has been assessed at Rs. 500.00. 8.5 Valuation of depreciation of 50% of the value of the furniture within six months of the Insurance policy appears to be exaggerated. However, in order to avoid any further controversy, we accept the recommendation of M/s. Sai Consultants and maintain the net assessment of the loss on account of damage to the furniture at Rs. 10,300.00. 8.6 In view of the above discussion, there is no merit at all in the challenge on the part of the Insurance Company that the complainant was disentitled to any amount under the claim for the reason that it has set up fake and fraudulent bills with the intention of undue and unfair enrichment. 8.4 In this view of the above principles laid down in Ruby Dutta case supra, this Court has the jurisdiction to do complete justice between the parties and award interest on the compensation which the complainant is held entitled to. Result In view of the foregoing discussion, it is directed as follows: (i) M.A No. 282/2013 filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby dismissed. (ii) M.A No. 298/2012 is accepted. It is held that the Claimant Bashir Ahmed Malik is entitled to the sum of Rs. 4,94,840.00 and Rs. 10,300.00 on account of loss of insured stocks and fittings and fixtures, respectively being the total of Rs. 5,05,140.00. (ii) M.A No. 298/2012 is accepted. It is held that the Claimant Bashir Ahmed Malik is entitled to the sum of Rs. 4,94,840.00 and Rs. 10,300.00 on account of loss of insured stocks and fittings and fixtures, respectively being the total of Rs. 5,05,140.00. (iii) It is further held that the claimant Bashir Ahmed Malik would be entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 26th April, 2008 when he filed the Complaint till payment of the amount by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (iv) The Complainant/Claimant would be entitled to costs of these two appeals quantified at Rs. 40,000.00. (v) The Insurance Company shall make payment of the above amount to the claimant within four weeks from today. M.A No. 298/2012 is allowed and MA No. 282/2013 is rejected in the above terms.