National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Student Boot House on 11 March, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4095 OF 2010 (Against the order dated 11.06.2010 in Appeal No.1428/2003 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2/1/55, Savitri Sadan Civil Lines, Faizabad Rep. by its Zonal Manager & Anr. .Petitioners Versus M/s. Student Boot House Chowk, Faizabad Town Rep. by its Partner, Shambhoo Dutt Arora S/o Late Ayodhya Prasad Arora R/o Mohalla Kotha Parch Town and District Faizabad & Anr. .........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/ Caveator : Mr. M.N. Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 11-3-2011 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. against the order of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.1428/2003. This was a case of a fire accident in a shoe shop in which the stock in trade as well as the furniture and fitting in the shop had been destroyed, primarily by the fire and, to some extent, by the water jets used to douse the fire. The District Forum accepted the recommendation of the surveyor appointed by the insurance company and awarded an amount of Rs.30,067/- together with six percent interest from the date of the consumer complaint. In appeal by the Complainant, the State Commission enhanced the amount of relief to Rs.2,28,000/-. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the OP/insurance company has filed this Revision Petition.
2. We have perused the records of the case and heard the counsels for the parties on merits, at the admission stage itself. Also, the revision petition has been filed with a delay of 37 days, which is condoned.
3. The award of the District Forum was based upon the surveyors report. This report has noted that according to the bank statements, purchase bills for stock and cash memos for sale, the stock available at the time of the loss by fire was claimed to be Rs.862950. But the surveyor has rejected them as documents with no relevance to the physical stockholding of the insured. However, before making final recommendation for Rs.30067/- the surveyor has noted that in the absence of any physical verification of the items within 24 hours of the loss and no item-wise Stock record made available of the same by the Insured there is no conclusive evidence supporting the loss as per list of items later on submitted by the Insured therefore the Loss has been assessed on the basis of declaration made at the time of Survey as supported by their respective bills and on the best judgment basis. This comment, in the background of the records of this case, is unacceptable as a ground for limiting the actual entitlement of the Complainant under the policy.
4. The State Commission has referred to the letter of 25.7.2001 written by the Divisional Manager of the RP/Insurance Co. to the surveyor as evidence of the fact that all relevant records had been sent by the insured/complainant to the Insurance Co. but were not made available by the latter to the Surveyor. The Commission has observed that Thus now it is well-established fact beyond any doubt that indeed the petitioner has forwarded all documents to the insurance company well before the said surveyors report. Because of that only the insurance companys Divisional Manager could mention about the same in his letter dated 25.7.2001 that the petitioner has submitted relevant documents to his company. But even then, the said records were not made available to the surveyor who inspected the disputed premises, by the insurance company.
5. This conclusion is to be seen in the background of the letter of 25.7.2001 written by the Complainant to the Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Faizabad. The Complainant clearly mentions sending the photographs to one Sri Tandon on 5.5.2001, while enclosing all other documents with this letter clearly mentioning that they are to be sent to the final Surveyor. The Complainants letter also makes a categorical requests that his claim should be considered on the basis of documents furnished by him. In this background, it is very surprising that the report of the Surveyor Priya Prabhat has observed that they had not received the relevant records.
6. This also explains why the State Commission went into the stock details for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 and noted that the Respondent/Complainant had purchased footwear stocks worth Rs.3156668/- and sold stock worth Rs.2836889.30 hence the closing stock as on 31.03.2001 was worth Rs.836300. Adding the purchases between 1.4.2001 and 13.4.2001 and deducting the sales during this period, the value of stocks at the time of the fire was taken as Rs.422456. In the background of the records not being made available by the RP/OP to the surveyor, the State Commission has accepted the assessment of loss as per the report of the Fire Department, which is Rs.253000/-, as compared to Rs.422456 coming from the records examined by the State Commission. The State Commission has held that RP/OP responsible for deficiency to the extent of failure to provide all available records to the surveyor.
7. The impugned order has given detailed reasoning for rejecting the recommendation of the Surveyor and accepting the assessment of the Fire Department. We therefore, do not accept the claim of the RP/OP that State Commission has not given any rational basis for the figure accepted in their order. Consequently, the revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit. It is therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs.
.
(R.K.BATTA, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER S/-