State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Ganesh Enterprises vs National Insurance Company on 24 March, 2021
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 21 of 2008 Date of Institution : 15.07.2008 Date of Decision : 24.03.2021 M/s Ganesh Enterprises, Opp. Sector 25, Part - II, Delhi-Sanauli Bye-Pass, Near Raj Garden Gali, Panipat through its Proprietor, Shri Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Krishan Chand. ......Complainant V e r s u s National Insurance Company through its Regional Manager, RO-II, SCO No.334-336, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Near Kishore Cinema, Panipat. Senior Branch Manager, Direct Agent Branch, National Insurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Near Kishore Cinema, Panipat. M/s Consolidated Surveyor Pvt. Ltd., through Sh. N. S. Sidhu, 171, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh - 160 036. .... Opposite Parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:
None for the complainant.
Sh. R.C.Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.
Opposite Party No.4 exparte vide order dated 22.02.2018.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Initially, this case was decided by this Commission vide order dated 28.01.2009 with the following relief :-
"32. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is eminently triable before this Bench, which has both the territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction. In view of our earlier discussion, we hold that the OPs are deficient in providing service, in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Consequently, the complaint is allowed and all the OPs are directed to pay the complainant as under: -
a sum of Rs.95,728.80Ps as loss to the building;
amount of loss worked out on the basis of books and records after allowing all sales and purchases for the relevant time period including those from three concerns i.e. M/s Shakumbari Woolen Mill; Ganpati Woolen Mill and Mahalakshmi International; interest @12% per annum from the date three months after the submission of the claim by the complainant on the amounts of Reliefs (a) and (b) above till actual payment. It is clarified that the interest awarded @12% also includes compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant; a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
33. The OPs are further directed to comply with the directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, First Appeal No.91 of 2009 was filed by the Opposite Parties i.e. National Insurance Company Limited before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the said Commission allowed the appeal and setting aside the impugned order passed by this Commission and remanded the case to this Commission vide order dated 17.08.2017 with the following directions :-
"For the aforegoing reasons, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and Complaint Case No. 21 of 2008 is restored to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication, after affording due opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence in support of their respective stands, relating to the genuineness of the purchases from the aforesaid three concerns. If the prayer made in the said applications is still pursued by the Insurance Company, the State Commission may summon the record from Excise & Sales Tax Department. Needless to clarify, the production of the records would be the responsibility of the Insurance Company.
It goes without saying that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the other grounds raised in the Appeal as also on the authenticity of the purchases claimed to have been made by the Complainant from the aforesaid three concerns.
The deposit of ₹6,00,000/- stated to have been made by the Insurance Company, in terms of order dated 26.05.2009, if not already withdrawn by the Complainant, shall continue to remain in a Fixed Deposit Receipt and shall abide by the final result in the Complaint.
Since the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2008, the State Commission is requested to decide it as expeditiously as practicable.
The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.10.2017 for further proceedings.
The statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company at the time of filing the Appeal shall stand transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund by way of a Bank Draft drawn in favour of PAO, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi.
The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own cost."
3. The following facts are taken from earlier judgment dated 28.01.2009 passed by this Commission. So, there is no need to reiterate it again.
"Briefly stated, as per the complaint, the complainant is a proprietory concern and Sh. Ravinder Kumar is its sole proprietor. The complaint has been filed through Sh. Ravinder Kumar. The complainant unit was set up in the year 2003 and it is engaged in the trading of all kinds of yarn, waste, rags and blankets. The complainant vide Policy No.421501/11/6/3100000089 got an insurance for its building and stocks amounting to Rs.35 Lacs and the policy was valid from 28.7.2006 to 27.7.2007. The policy (Annexure C-1) covered risk of all kinds of stocks of yarn, rags, synthetic waste, cotton waste, synthetic fibers and blankets etc. stored or lying in the godown of the complainant unit. As per the breakdown of the policy, the building of the godown was insured for Rs.5 Lacs and the stocks, as mentioned above, were insured for Rs.30 Lacs. It was a standard fire and peril policy. The building of godown was on rent and this endorsement had been made in Annexure C-2. It is the case of the complainant that no document other than Annexures C-1 and C-2 were provided to it giving terms and conditions of the policy. It has been stated by the complainant that its accounts are duly audited by Chartered Accountants and the balance sheet for the period ending 31.3.2007 has been placed as Annexure A-3, which indicates the turnover for Financial Year 2007-07 to Rs.2,60,06,376/-. As per the complainant, the turnover of the complainant firm is steadily on the increase. The complainant firm had initially taken a cash credit limit against hypothecation of stocks for its smooth running to the extent of Rs.28 Lacs from Union Bank of India, G.T. Road, Panipat and this limit has been increased to Rs.40 Lacs in the year 2008.
2. On 15.7.2007, there was a fire in the godown of the complainant at about 9:30 hours. The complainant was informed about it by the neighbourers. Immediately, fire brigade was called and four fire tenders were engaged in extinguishing the fire, which raged for almost three hours and gutted the entire godown damaging totally the stocks lying in it. A DDR about the incident was registered on 16.7.2007 (Annexure C-7). The fire brigade also gave its report, which is Annexure C-8. Information of the incident was also given to the OPs on 6.7.2007 and officers of the Branch and Divisional Office of OPs visited the site. It was intimated that due to the incident of loss, which was more than Rs.30 Lacs, the claim fell in the competency of the Regional Office, Chandigarh. Consequently, the Regional Office appointed M/s Consolidated Surveyors Privated Limited to assess the loss. The surveyor visited the premises of the complainant on 18th and 20th July 2007 and all information and documents demanded by the surveyor including Annexure C-3 were provided to them.
3. It is also the case of the complainant that the bank statement of accounts are submitted every month and physical verification of stock is done by the bank officials regularly and the last stocks statement dated 9.7.2007 was received by the Bank on 30.7.2007. In support, the complainant has filed Annexures C-10 to C-14.
4. The surveyors, to assess the loss, got the tractor trolley of ash lying in the godown loaded and got it weighed at Anmol Dharam Kanta. The weight of the ash was 3,530 Kg but the surveyors applied a deduction of 10% on account of water content and the net weight of the ash was taken to be 3,177 Kg and since the total ash in the godown was about ten trolleys worth, the total was taken as 31,770 Kg. Further to count the loss of yarn, 12200 cones were counted from the charred remains of cones. However, the surveyors did not take into account that many cones had fully burnt and converted into ash. This was pointed out to the surveyors who had assured that it will be taken into account subsequently while finalizing the loss of cones but the same was eventually not done. It is further the case of the complainant that since the office of the complainant was in front and godown in the rear had got fire, the office portion of the building was saved and total record of the complainant firm was also saved. From the record available copies of purchase and sale bills certified by Chartered Accountants for the period from 1.4.2007 to 15.7.2007 were provided to the surveyor (Annexures C-18 and C-19). As per these bills, the average rate of yarn was Rs.43.34 and that of rags was Rs.24.25. It is further clear from the stock statement registers that the stock of yarn on 5.6.2007 was only 43 Kg but on the date of loss, it was 31,803 Kg whereas on 17.5.2007, the stock of rags was 2 Kg only and it was 52,202 Kg on the date of occurrence of fire (Annexures C-20 and C-21). It is next submitted in the complaint that the complainant has been submitting the sales tax return every quarter and the same were duly verified by the Excise and Taxation Authorities were shown to the surveyor (Annexures C-22 to C-26).
5. As per the complainant, the loss to the building was estimated by an authorized valuer i.e. M/s Harpal Associates and the same was reported to be Rs.4,23,000/- (Annexure C-27).
6. Thus, as per the complainant, the total loss suffered by it was Rs.33,60,920/- as under and all the relevant documents relating to it had been provided to the surveyor: -
ESTIMATED LOSS Sr. No. Particulars Quantity (Kg.) Amount (Rs.)
1.
Yarn.
31,803 15,16,734-00
2. Wastes and Rags.
52,202 14,10,786-00
3. Fire Fighting Charges.
-
9,300-00
4. Tractor Trolley and Unloading Charges.
-
1,100-00
5. Loss to building.
-
4,23,000-00 Total 33,60,920-00
7. The grouse of the complainant is that this claim had been repudiated by the OPs No.1 to 3 vide letter dated 26.2.2008 (Annexure C-34) on baseless grounds, which are scandalous and defamatory. As per this repudiation letter, the claim had been repudiated on the ground of violation of Clause No.8 of the Policy i.e. the claim being fraudulent.
8. The complainant on its part, thereafter, obtained a copy of the survey report under RTI because the same had not been provided by the OPs and having perused the survey report found following anomalies in the same:-
The report of the approved valuers regarding loss to the building amounting to Rs.4,33,000/- had been ignored by the surveyor and loss only to the tune of Rs.71,796/- was allowed even after mentioning that the building had suffered serious damage.
The surveyors wrongly took the value of the building as Rs.7,35,000/- and applied the average clause even though no terms and conditions of the policy had ever been supplied to the complainant.
The building had been insured by the OPs No.1 to 3 fully knowing that it was a rented premises and the complainant was responsible for its upkeep and repairs. Having taken the premium for the insurance of the rented premises, the OPs cannot getaway from their liability to compensate the complainant for the loss.
The allegation of the complainant having engineered the fire made in the survey report have been made without any evidence and are baseless, scandalous and defamatory in nature.
10% deduction on the dead stock had been applied, which is without any basis because as indicated by the record, the stock of yarn on 5.6.2007 was only 43 Kgs and that of rags on 15.5.2007 was only 2 Kg. Thus, it was evident that there was no added stock lying in the godown.
The surveyors had taken volumenatory analysis on the basis of wastement of ash, which is an unacceptable proposition.
The rate of rags and waste had been grossly reduced by the surveyor in calculating the loss.
The surveyors had wrongly disallowed purchase from three firms i.e. M/s Shakumbari Woolen Mill; Ganpati Woolen Mill and Mahalakshmi International because the complainant had personally visited with the surveyor these firms and had got the records verified. Further in this case, ETO-cum-Assessing Officer had also verified and checked documents and Account Books of these parties and the surveyors are annexed as Annexures C-50 to C-63. Thus, the stand of the surveyor proves to be false.
Yarn cones, which had got duly burnt, were not taken into account while assessing the total loss and further weight of yarn in each cone was taken as 1.15 Kg whereas in actual fact, it is 1.75 Kg (Annexures C-64 to C-66 refer). The surveyors have given no basis for reduction in weight of the yarn in the cones.
The surveyors have indicated the value of salvage as Rs.30,000/- whereas after the fire, nothing had remained other than ashes and thus, the salvage had no value at all and if required, the insurance company can take charge of the salvage and compensate the complainant to that extent.
9. In the complaint, the complainant has also indicated that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint as the Regional Office at Chandigarh had the authority to settle its claim and that it had appointed OP No.4 as the surveyor to assess the loss. It has further been stated that the Commission also has the pecuniary jurisdiction as the claimed amount exceeds Rs.20 Lacs and is less than Rs.1 Crore.
10. Having given the above facts, the complainant has prayed for the following reliefs: -
OPs No.1 to 3 be directed to pay the complainant Rs.33,60,920/- for the loss suffered by it along with interest @13 ½ per annum from the loss till date.
All the OPs be further directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10 Lacs as compensation for mental harassment, agony and defamatory allegations.
OPs be also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.66,000/- as cost of litigation."
4. The following reply/evidence filed by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 as well as Opposite Party No.4 are taken from earlier judgment dated 28.01.2009 passed by this Commission. So, there is no need to reiterate it again.
"11. OPs No.1 to 3 in their joint written statement have first raised certain preliminary objections. The first objection raised is that the Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint because the loss had taken place at Panipat and the insurance had also been taken at Panipat and the decision of repudiating the claim was also taken at Panipat and therefore, no cause of action had taken place at Chandigarh and thus, the Commission did not the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The next objection is that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The third objection is that the complaint is based on manipulation, fraud and misinformation of bogus bills as well as manipulation of record. Therefore, it involves disputed quests of facts and law and thus, the complaint is triable by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The next objection is that the complainant has exaggerated the claim beyond Rs.20 Lacs to being it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission whereas the actual loss suffered by the complainant is much less.
12. On merits, the version of OPs No.1 to 3 is that the entire policy of insurance along with the terms and conditions had been supplied to the complainant (R-1) and no representation was ever received from the complainant that it had not received the terms and conditions. It is further the case of these OPs that the alleged loss had been duly assessed by an independent surveyor and the loss assessor working under the name and style of M/s. Consolidated Surveyors Private Limited and the surveyors had submitted their report dated 16.1.2008 and as per Para No.17.1 of this report, the surveyors had recommended repudiation of the claim and the same was done accordingly [Surveyor Report is Annexure R-2 (Colly)]. These OPs referring to Annexure R-2 have stated that some of the purchase bills verified by the surveyor by sending registered A.D letters to the parties concerned were returned undelivered for want of identification of addresses. It is further the case of these OPs that the insured/complainant had signed a sheet duly endorsed by the surveyor showing dimensions of the damaged volume of rags and also another sheet with regard to physical inventory of affected stocks (Annexure R-2). As per these OPs, the photographs and report placed on record by the surveyor show that stocks were lying in the shape of thick cones and bundles, which can neither catch fire easily nor be burnt in entirety and only upper layer of the stocks crated by the complainant could be partially damaged by the fire. It has also been stated that the cost of rags involved in the alleged fire was found to be very low as confirmed by the surveyor from independent agencies in the market. It is further the case of these OPs that the purchase and sale of material was only a paper transaction with o0ther so called traders to grab easy money through unreasonable and illegal untenable means.
13. As regards the checking of the stocks by the Bank officials, the stand of the OPs is that these officials are neither experts nor qualified to verify and account the stocks and they simply rely upon the statements prepared by the loanee to their convenience and the audit reports audited by the Chartered Accountant are simply confirmation of the accounting system and account books produced before the Chartered Accountant without going into the authenticity of its contents and substance.
14. As regards the value of rags, it has been stated that its value deteriorates on account of sorting of by prospective purchasers and also on account of stock as per the market practices.
15. Commenting on the fire loss to the building, the case of these OPs is that the complainant has no insurable interest in the building as its is only a rented premises and further, the loss to the building has been judged by the surveyor in an accurate and justified manner. Furthermore, it is the case of OPs No.1 to 3 that the building was found inadequately insured and hence, the loss on this account had been proportionately reduced.
16. It has also been stated during scrutiny of VAT returns of the suppliers of stock annexed by the complainant, it was found that these do not tally with the regards of Taxation Department and that these had been filed with an ulterior motive. In the end, it has been reiterated that the surveyors had rightly assessed the loss as well as the salvage value and the claim filed by the complainant is neither justified nor substantiated and further, the report of the surveyor based on verification of various facts, circumstances and documents clearly show the malafide intentions of the complainant, moreover, the police report, fire brigade report and the news papers cuttings are self speaking and cannot be permitted as conclusive evidence. It has thus been reiterated that it was a fraudulent claim and it had been rightly repudiated.
17. The version of Op No.4 - surveyor is that it made an independent and fair survey of the alleged loss and during investigation of the claim, it found that the complainant had exaggerated the sale and purchase on record to grab money from OPs No.1 to 3. As per this OP, the cash credit limit is not any conclusive proof of quantum of alleged loss. In the view of this OP, there was no evidence, which could show that the fire has taken place itself and therefore, this OP was of the view that the fire had been engineered by the complainant himself. It is further the case of this OP that the complainant had shown fake sale and purchase bills and had manipulated the balance sheets and other records and in its view, audited balance sheets provided by the insured do not guarantee and prove that the stock lying with the insured was of the same value as had been shown in the balance sheets.
18. As regards deduction of 10% from the weight of ash in the trolley, the version of this OP is that this deduction had been made because of the moisture contents, which had occurred due to sprinkling of water by the fire brigade to extinguish the fire and furthermore, it has been stated that the quantity of the textile wastes submitted in the godown was ascertained from the complainant and the complainant had signed the inventory of stock taken by the surveyor.
19. Commenting on the purchase bills, it has been stated that the purchase bills were found prima facie doubtful and registered letters were issued by this OP to all the parties and almost all the registered letters were received by the surveyor as undelivered and the same have been annexed alongwith the survey report. It has also been stated that the alleged suppliers are very small traders and even nobody knows them in their own street and nor the complainant could produce them for any verification. It has been emphasized by this OP that when the purchase itself is not genuine, the stock register cannot be treated as authentic record.
20. Referring to the photographs annexed with the survey report, it has been stated that the stocks were not completely burnt and even the quality of waste material as alleged and claimed did not tally with the market rate and market trends and these were found to be of very poor quality and minimum value.
21. OP No.4 did not allow purchases made by the complainant from Shakumbari Woolen Mill; Ganpati Woolen Mill and Mahalakshmi International amounting to Rs.23,40,760/- as the same were not shown as sale in the VAT returns of the aforesaid parties filed with the Excise and Taxation Department.
22. As regards loss to the building is concerned, the answering OP has stated that the cost of building claimed was not correct and further the dismantling of brick work, flooring, ACC sheets etc. were not covered in the policy of insurance and therefore, he did not allow the same. It has also been stated that the building was under insured and therefore, the loss was proportionately reduced. However, it has been emphatically stated by this OP that since the insured had no insurable interest in the building, the claim in this regard was not payable. In the end, this OP has emphasized that it had gone into depth of the claim and had discussed the matter with the complainant as well as many local traders and it was found that there was a nexus between the suppliers and the complainant and therefore, they had issued accommodating bills to each other to build the stock levels in their books to ultimately avail fraudulent claim. In the view of this OP, the complainant was not entitled to any claim, compensation or interest etc. as the whole claim has been built on false and flimsy grounds/documents and thus, it stood vitiated.
23. In evidence, the complaint filed affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Ganesh Enterprises and filed various documents marked from Annexures C-1 to C-67 along with the complaint. On the other hand, OPs No.1 to 3 filed in evidence affidavit of Sh. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj, Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and annexed therewith copy of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Annexure R-1); copy of Survey and Assessment Report (Annexure R-2) and various other documents running into 390 pages approximately. OP No.4 - M/s Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. also filed in evidence affidavit of its Director Sh. N. S. Sidhu, a Chartered Accountant by profession and annexed along with it documents marked OP-4/1 to OP-4/28."
5. We have heard Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 as well as perused the written arguments filed by the contesting parties.
6. Admittedly, as per zimini order dated 03.10.2017, it could be seen that this complaint was remanded by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 17.08.2017 passed in First Appeal No.91 of 2009 and on that date, none put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.4. Even fresh notice was issued to Opposite Party No.4 but it did not appear, as such, Opposite Party No.4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.02.2018. In response to the notice issued to the office of Excise & Taxation Officer at Panipat vide order dated 19.03.2018 passed in MA/1134/2017, Sh.Jagbir Singh, Tax Inspector was present and stated that the record is very old, as such, not available and assured the Court that efforts will be made to locate the same. We made it very clear that if the record was not available and destroyed, as per rules, a certificate issued by Excise & Taxation Officer be placed on record. On the next date of hearing i.e. 21.05.2018, Sh.Jagbir Singh, Tax Inspector O/s Excise and Taxation Department, Ward -05, Panipat put up before us a sealed cover and when it was opened, there were two certificates issued stating that record not available and nothing mentioned as to where that record had gone. Therefore, Sh.Divik Sharma & Sh.R.K.Sharma, Excise & Taxation Officer, Wards - 5 & 7, Panipat were directed to come present to state about the whereabouts of the record and if not traceable whether any steps were taken to trace out the record and whether record qua assessee for the relevant years i.e. 2007-08 available. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e. 25.06.2018 & 06.08.2018, the aforesaid officers were present and sought more time to place on record the said record. Moreover, in terms of order passed in MA/436/2018, record of M/s Ganpati Woolen Mills, Panipat alongwith other two concerns, namely, M/s Shakumbari Woolen Mill and Mahalakhsmi International was summoned. Thereafter, number of adjournments were granted to trace the record but the Excise & Taxation Department failed to trace the same. On 21.08.2019, Ms.Pooja Goyat, Excise & Taxation Officer, Ward-7, Panipat and Sh.Ajay Kundu, Excise & Taxation Officer, Ward-5, Panipat filed their respective affidavits but a bare perusal of the said affidavits showed that they did not comply with the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by this Commission. They were further directed to file additional affidavit as to whether the relevant record has been weeded out or destroyed in accordance with law. On 16.09.2019, Excise & Taxation Officer(s) filed affidavits, wherein, it was transpired that requisite record was not traceable and it is clear that the said record has not been weeded out or destroyed as per rule. Even there is no cogent reason or non production of record. Therefore, Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana was directed to conduct enquiry with regard to misplacement of records and take appropriate action against the said officer(s). Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed MA/436/2018 for summoning the record of office of Excise & Taxation Department, Panipat of M/s Ganpati Woolen Mills in compliance of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, vide its order dated 17.08.2017 passed in FA/91/2009. Ms. Pooja Goyat & Sh.Ajay Kundu, Excise & Taxation Officers, Ward - 7 & 5, Panipat filed their respective affidavits alongwith relevant record and enquiry report. Accordingly, the said application was disposed of. On that next date of hearing i.e. 06.12.2019, Sh.Ravinder Kumar, Proprietor of the complainant, moved application for summoning the witnesses i.e. Ms.Pooja Goyat and Sh.Ajay Kundu, Excise & Taxation Officers - cum - Assessing Authority, Panipat. Even Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed another application for marking the documents as exhibits in evidence of the insurance company, filed by the office of ETO, Panipat. Reply to the application not filed by the complainant.
7. We find from the records that the main grouse of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 - insurance company is that the surveyor i.e. Opposite Party No.4 had doubted the genuineness of the purchases made by the complainant from the three concerns, namely, M/s Shakumbri Woolen Mills, Panipat, M/s Ganpati Woolen Mills, Panipat and M/s Mahalaxmi International, Panipat, as details reflected in the invoices produced by the complainant, did not tally with the sales shown by them in the returns filed with the Revenue Authority. Therefore, it was necessary that before arriving at final conclusion of the genuineness or otherwise for the said purchases, both the parties were required to adduce evidence in support of their grounds. As mentioned earlier, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 had moved before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for summoning the afore-stated record from the Revenue Authorities. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi while passing the order observed that this Commission erred in rejecting the application and denying the insurance company to substantiate the observations in the report dated 16.01.2008 by the surveyor, namely, M/s Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that when they visited the Excise & Taxation Office at Panipat and tried to verify the VAT returns submitted by the complainant of different suppliers, they were shocked to find out that some of the returns filed by the complainant were entirely different from those provided by the complainant and the details of the sales not reflected in the returns filed by the complainant with the said department. Accordingly, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi remanded the case back to this Commission to afford an opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence in support of the retrospective stand, which would show the genuineness of the three concerns, namely, M/s Shakumbri Woolen Mills, Panipat, M/s Ganpati Woolen Mills, Panipat and M/s Mahalaxmi International, Panipat. This Commission was directed to summon the record from Excise & Sales Tax Department. Further, it was also ordered by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the production of the records would be the responsibility of the insurance company. This Commission in pursuance to the order dated 17.08.2017 of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, gave enough opportunity to the Excise & Taxation Officers, Panipat to produce necessary returns, which would reflect the sales and purchases made by the complainant, but after protracted appearances in this Commission, the officers of the office of Excise & Taxation Department failed to produce on record any certificate, which would clearly throw light about the sales and purchases made by the complainant during the period of accident, which took place in the mill. Rather, the said officers of Excise & Taxation Department furnished their respective affidavits, which could not throw any light on the lines required for adjudication of the case. On a perusal of zimini order dated 16.09.2019 in MA/436/2018 of the present complaint, it is clearly recorded that after perusal of both the affidavits filed by Sh.Ajay Kundu, Excise & Taxation Officer, Ward-5, Panipat and Ms.Pooja Goyat, Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Ward-7, Panipat, it transpired that requisite records were not traceable and it is clear that no information was there whether the said record was weeded out or destroyed, as per rule. Even, there is no cogent reason for non production of record.
8. Going by the above exercise conducted by this Commission for summoning the relevant record from Excise & Taxation Officers, Ward No.5 & 7, Panipat, it is patently clear that no relevant certificate has been produced by the said officers to substantiate the amount of sales and purchase made by the complainant during the said period of fire.
9. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that this complaint is dismissed for want of required evidence and documents. In view of dismissal of the complaint, both the applications i.e. one filed by the complainant(s) for summoning the witnesses i.e. Ms.Pooja Goyat and Sh.Ajay Kundu, Excise & Taxation Officers - cum - Assessing Authority, Panipat and Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed another application for marking the documents as exhibits in evidence of the insurance company, filed by the office of ETO, Panipat stand infructuous.
10. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
11. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
March 24th, 20 21.
Sd/-
(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER rb