National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Gupta Tyre House on 26 May, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2654 OF 2010 (From the order dated 18.03.2010 in Appeal No.189/2007 of the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEAR NIMANTRAN HOTEL SIRSA ROAD HISAR .. Petitioner Vs. GUPTA TYRE HOUSE THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA 328, AUTO MARKET HISAR .. Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh K.Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate Pronounced on : 26th May, 2011 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short State Commission) vide which the State Commission has accepted the appeal of the complainant (respondent herein) and set aside the order of the District Forum, Hisar.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant had got his business premises (shop of tyres) insured with the petitioner/opposite party Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. During the period of the policy, a theft took place on the intervening night of 6 & 7.3.2004 in the above shop and according to the complainant, tyres worth Rs.6,98,000/- were stolen. FIR was lodged with the local Police and necessary intimation was given to the petitioner Insurance Company.
Surveyor came to be appointed by the Insurance Company, who submitted his report dated 21.9.2004 assessing the loss of Rs.57,852/-, which according to the complainant was much less than the loss suffered by him. In view of this, the complainant approached the petitioner Insurance Company to make payment of the actual loss suffered by him i.e. Rs.6,98,000/-, but the opposite parties did not accede to his request. The complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint.
His consumer complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 7.12.2006 in terms of the following order :-
.There is metit in this complaint which is hereby accepted with the direction to the respondents to pay Rs.57,852/- (i.e. the assessed amount) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint which was filed on 10.1.2005 till its payment. The respondents are further burdened with cost of litigation which we quantify at Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only).
Compliance of this order be made within a period of three months.
3. Aggrieved by aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant/respondent had filed the appeal before the State Commission, which accepted the appeal in regard to the quantum of compensation on account of loss suffered by the complainant in the theft of tyres and set aside the order of the District Forum, and hence the present revision petition.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the records of the case.
5. The basic facts regarding the insurance cover and the theft etc. are not in dispute. The question involved is in respect of the quantum of compensation. Counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company has submitted that the State Commission has erred in ignoring the fact that the complainant did not produce any bills and stock register and based his claim only on the basis of the balance sheet in relation to the loss of tyres in question. He contended that in relation to the theft of the tyres, it was very important for the complainant to establish that the tyres alleged to have been stolen during the theft, were actually in his stock in the shop at the time of the theft.
This would be proved only by entries in the stock register duly supported by the bills. Since this was not done, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.57,852/- which was found to be the appropriate estimate of the loss based on the documents and the District Forum was right in accepting the complaint only to this extent. He, further submitted that the list in respect of the items of his stock alleged to have been stolen in the theft produced by the complainant, before the Local Commissioner, could not be relied upon, since the complainant did not provide any such details to the Police in the FIR. It was also his contention that in the absence of the basic documents like bills and the stock register, reliance should not have been placed by the State Commission only on the statement furnished by the complainant to the Bank with reference to the cash credit limit and the sales tax return filed by the complainant before the Sales Tax Authorities. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order suffers from the major infirmity of wrong appraisal of the documents and the material before the State Commission and hence, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
6. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/complainant submitted that the figure of loss was given at Rs.6,98,000/- in the FIR lodged with the local Police. He further submitted that it is not necessary that every minute detail be submitted in this respect to the Police at the time of filing of the FIR. The details in this regard have, however, been fully furnished to the surveyor and the Local Commissioner by the complainant.
He argued that in case there was any infirmity in the figures of stock, it would not have been accepted in the assessment done by the Sales Tax Authority, where figures of pending stocks, sales and closing stock register are extremely relevant, while passing the assessment order. In any case, he submitted that in case the surveyor wished to discard all this documentary evidence produced before him, it was obligatory on his part to give cogent reasons and grounds for his rejection. So far as the increase in the amount of gross profit which is increased from 2.18% on 31.3.2003 to 4.31% as on 8.3.2004 is concerned, counsel for the respondent submitted that the same is based on the bills of the purchases, sales and closing stock register in the trading account and the net profit and other parameters are calculated separately and get reflected in the profit and loss account and the balance sheet. Hence, the variation in the ratio of GP rates cannot be taken to mean that the figures in respect of the stock of goods are not reliable. He, therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the revision petition and hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of counsel for both the parties and perused the orders of fora below.
8. The broad facts in the case being not in dispute, the State Commission has looked into the quantum of compensation at length in its well reasoned impugned order. While returning its finding in favour of the complainant, the State Commission has made following observations in support of its order:-
As per report of the surveyor, the complainant had been submitting the stock statements to the bank regularly, the mention whereof has been given by the surveyor in his report as under :-
The insured is regularly submitting stock statements to the bank and as per stock statement, the stocks with the insured as under :
Dated 01.04.2003 24,38,511.00 01.06.2003 28,29,547.00 01.07.2003 47,62,108.00 01.08.2003 56,89,804.00 01.09.2003 46,66,217.00 01.10.2003 43,86,485.00 01.11.2003 35,21,463.00 01.12.2003 20,69,563.00 01.01.2004 28,38,078.00 01.02.2004 17,76,902.00 The surveyor in his report took the stocks of tyres in the shop of the complainant as on the date of theft at Rs.8,71,527/- by recording following four lines :
The stocks as per Bank statement is not authentic because it is submitted for the purpose of taking CC limit only.
Therefore, the stocks as on date of loss has been taken at Rs.8,71,527/- for the purpose of assessment of loss.
Thus, by recording few lines without any cogent reason, the loss assessed by the surveyor in his report at Rs.57,852/- cannot be termed as a sufficient ground to deprive of the complainant of his actual loss because according to the authenticated documents discussed by the surveyor in his report the stock in the shop of the complainant as per Bank statement was of Rs.15,80,424/- as on 8.3.2004. The documents mentioned by the surveyor in his report as discussed above, fully corroborate the version of the complainant with respect to the quantum of loss suffered by him.
The sale-tax return was filed by the Chartered Accountant of the Company which was duly assessed by the assessing authority, wherein, the entries find mention that the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.6,98,000/-.
Since, the complainant has placed its detailed statement of account, which has been examined by the assessing authority and duly considered it to be correct, we, thus cannot take contrary view than of the view taken by the Sale-tax authority, Hisar.
A careful look at the aforesaid documents produced on record makes it clear that the stock of the complainant on the date of theft was worth Rs.15,80,424/- and thus the loss suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.6,98,000/- cannot be ignored.
At the same time, we are of the view that there is no cogent and convincing finding recorded by the surveyor in his report whereby he assessed the loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs.57,852/- and for that reason the report of the surveyor cannot be considered as trustworthy.
9. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The District Forum apparently erred in ignoring the aforesaid important and relevant documentary evidence and rely only on the assessment made by the surveyor. The State Commission has further referred to the decision of this Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Mehar Chand, 2010 CTJ 147 (CP), wherein, this Commission had held that ;
..the surveyor is required not only to examine the estimate given but also to give sought and cogent reasons as to why the estimates should not be accepted.
10. The State Commission was, therefore, absolutely right in not considering the report of the surveyor while assessing the loss and returning its findings based on the entire documentary evidence and the report of the Local Commissioner which, as counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company fairly admitted, was not objected to.
11. In the circumstances, we find that there is no substance in the revision petition, which would justify our interference with the impugned order, while exercising our revisional jurisdiction.
12. Revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed, with no order as to cost.
J. (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER Sonia/