National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ashoka Tyre House vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: I(2004)CPJ82(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. This First Appeal is against the order dated 22.4.1996 of the State Commission, Chandigarh in Complaint No. 448/1993. Brief facts of the case are :
2. The complainant M/s. Ashoka Tyre House runs the business of selling tyres. His stocks of tyres were insured for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs with the respondent, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period 8.4.1991 to 7.4.1992. It is a case of the complainant that a theft took place on the night of 12/13th November, 1991 when the locks of his business premises were broken and some tyres were stolen. On the 13th itself he filed an FIR with the Police and also reported the loss to the respondent. On the 13th itself, when the police came to investigate, they assessed that 26 tyres were missing. The respondent appointed a Surveyor by name Shri R.C. Chugh who called for information from the complainant on 17.11.1981. The information was submitted and a formal insurance claim was lodged on 18.1.1992. Thereafter, in spite of number of reminders from the complainant, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. The complainant thereafter gave a legal notice which was replied by the respondent on March 16, 1993 (Exhibit-H). In this letter, the respondent denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 1,81,000/- and that he was not co-operating in supplying certain documentary evidence like the stock register. They also mentioned that if no reply is received within 15 days, they will treat the claim file as closed.
3. In response to this Ashoka Tyre House filed a complaint before the State Commission, Chandigarh. The State Commission dismissed the complaint essentially on the ground that the complainant did not maintain the stock register. It further held that there was only a general allegation that the tyres valued at Rs. 1,81,000/- were stolen; yet no details of the tyres as to what was their make and from whom they were purchased, etc. have been indicated in the complaint. It also observed that the complainant had not brought before the State Commission any photograph of his premises where shutters were allegedly broken. It is against this order, the appeal has been filed.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and gone through the record carefully. It is seen that the respondent appointed two Surveyors and two Investigators, in all 4 persons to look into the claim. It is worth noting that the respondent has brought this fact that he has appointed four Surveyors for the first time at the appellate stage in his reply version on behalf of the respondent on 11.7.1996. It is seen that they appointed these persons as follows :
5. It is also interesting to note though the last report to them was available on 3.12.1992, the respondent had neither accepted the insurance claim nor repudiated the same till March 16th, 1993 (Exhibit-H). Even in the letter of March 16, 1993, they had not repudiated the claim but only mentioned that the stock register has not been produced.
6. Therefore, the matter hinges as to whether the stock register was essential to decide the claim. The complainant admitted that he does not maintain a physical stock register. However, he maintains General Ledger of Sales and Purchases from which the value of stocks as on a particular date can be decided. There are various methods by which stock can be assessed. It is not essential that a physical stock register has to be there. The complainant has correctly argued that the Insurance Company is fully aware of the method of account keeping of the complainant, but still they issued him the insurance policy and even for the subsequent periods after the theft, they have insured his stocks.
7. We have gone through the reports of the two Surveyors and two Investigators, the first one Mr. R.C. Chugh on the basis of accounts kept by the complainant assessed the loss at Rs. 1,17,740/-. The third person, Strategic Security Consociates has clearly come to the conclusion that the burglary did take place. But he further added that the loss reported is based on rough estimates and is exaggerated. The fourth one, Duggal Gupta & Associates once again clearly came to the conclusion that burglary did take place. He also assessed like the first one but the loss is Rs. 1,17,740/-. However, because the Stock Register has not been maintained he recommended that the loss should be discounted by 20%. He, therefore, arrived at the amount to be reimbursed at Rs. 94,192/-. It is only the Second Investigator who felt that the claim appeared to be bogus. However, he did not give any specific reasons to buttress his conclusions. The Investigating Agency, the Strategic Security Consociates, appointed by the Insurance Company, in its report has specifically arrived at the conclusion that it was proved beyond any doubt that burglary by way of breaking open of the shutter did take place in the complainant's premises.
8. It is, therefore, very clear that three out of four Surveyors have concluded that there was in fact, a burglary. M/s. Duggal Gupta and Associates, Surveyors, appointed by the Insurance Company in its report dated 3rd December, 1992 has stated that they have taken into consideration books of accounts and details of purchase and sales and the same were in proper order.
9. It is true that complainant has lodged a FIR which was registered by the police for the offences punishable under Section 457/380, IPC, but investigation was closed as the accused were not traceable.
10. Therefore, there was no reason for the Insurance Company to arrive at the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the incident or that the complainant was not entitled to receive the amount for the loss assessed by the Surveyors.
11. We, therefore, hold that the respondent was at fault in not settling the claim of the appellant. As regard the quantum of the claim, we have pointed out above that all the three Surveyors assessed the loss at Rs. 1,17,740/-. Only the last one Duggal Gupta and Associates recommended that the claim should be discounted by 20% only because the complainant did not maintain a physical Stock Register.
12. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission. The respondent is directed to pay the claim of Rs. 1,17,740/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint before the State Commission within two months from the date of the Order along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.