(1.) FACTS in this case are by and large admitted and have been noted in detail by the District Forum in the impugned order.
(2.) SAW mill, structure and fruit boxes and logs being insured in the sum of Rs. 40,000, 50,000 and 20,000 respectively with the appellant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that on the date of incident i.e., 13.2.2005 due to heavy rain and flash floods all three insured elements were very badly damaged. As per respondent she sustained loss of more than Rs. 2 lacs. She further claimed that loss sustained by her was to the extent of Rs. 41,339 to the buildings as per estimate prepared by one Mr. Anant Ram, Junior Engineer (Retired), HP PWD. And to the extent of Rs. 33,743, so far as saw mill was concerned the report given by one Mr. S.L. Kaishta (illegible) and Pradhan, Gram Panchayat and Patwari Halqua had also certified the damage caused to the saw mill of the respondent.
(3.) SURVEYOR appointed by the appellant assessed the loss at Rs. 24,247 to the saw mill and in terms of the policy after invoking excess clause, a sum of Rs. 14,247 was paid to her in full and final settlement of her claim.