National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ayodhya Prasad vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. And ... on 14 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)CPJ93(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.9.2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna dismissing complaint against respondents 1-3/opposite parties 1-3.
2. Smt. Usha Devi who died during the pendency of complaint, had been running cloth business under the name and style of M/s. Priyanka Matching Centre at Boring Road, Patna. She purchased a Shopkeepers Policy covering the risk of burglary from respondent No. 4/opposite party No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh which was valid from 8.3.1990 to 7.3.1991. She further purchased a policy of Rs. 3 lakhs also covering the peril of burglary from respondent No. 1- Insurance Company commencing from 12.11.1990 for one year.
3. Burglary took place in the shop on 8.5.1990 for which claim of Rs. 53,023/- was settled and paid by respondent No. 4. Second burglary in the shop was committed in the intervening night of 17/18.5.1990 for which claim of Rs. 13,691/- was also settled by respondent No. 4. It was alleged that in the night of 21 /22.1.1991, yet another burglary took place in the shop for which claim of Rs. 3,42,200/-was made by Smt. Usha Devi to respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. Respondent No. 1 appointed A.K. Singh, Surveyor to conduct preliminary survey. M/s. Bhadra and Associates was appointed as the final Surveyor and it recommended payment of Rs. 2,22,781 /-.
4. At that stage, respondent No. 1 received a complaint that the theft was concocted. Prithvi Nidhi Investigator was, therefore, appointed by respondent No. 1 to verify the correctness of complaint. In view of doubtful aspects of the claim, Commercial Investigation Bureau was appointed to verify the genuineness of bills and cash memos filed in support of the claim. For ascertaining genuineness of out-station bills/ cash memos of Kanpur, Varanasi and Delhi, A.K. Singh, K.K. Singh and Malhotra Associates, Surveyors were further appointed by respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company. After considering the reports of Commercial Investigation Bureau, A.K. Singh, K.K. Singh and Malhotra Associates, Surveyors, the respondent No. 1-Insurance company offered payment of Rs. 49,969/- by the letter dated 19.3.1993 which amount was received by Smt. Usha Devi during the pendency of complaint on execution of subrogation-cum-indemnity bond and discharge voucher. She alleged that the said amount was received without prejudice to the claim made in the complaint. However, respondent No. 1 Insurance Company alleged that amount was received towards full and final settlement of claim made under the policy. Upholding that contention, the State Commission dismissed the complaint against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are the officials of Insurance Company.
5. Having heard Ms. Rachna Gupta for appellant, Ms. Deepa Chacko for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Kishore Rawat for respondent No. 4, the issue which arises for consideration is whether appellant is entitled to receive any further amount and, if so, how much? Copies of reports of Commercial Investigation Bureau, A.K. Singh, K.K. Singh and Malhotra Associates, Surveyors are placed in Volume II filed by respondent No. 1. Report of Commercial Investigation Bureau would show that Priyanka Matching Centre was not maintaining any stork registrar, purchase and sale register, cash-book and general ledger. Cash memos/bills made available by the firm showed purchase from M. Enterprise, Sati Textiles and Om Shankar but their addresses were not provided on the cash memos/ bills. Appellant and his son Lalan Kumar stated that M. Enterprise and Sati Textiles, Patna were owned by one Vijay Bhartiya. On inquiry in Laxmi Market, M. Enterprise and Sati Textiles could not be found and it was learnt that Shri Bhartiya who cheated a large number of persons did not have any regular cloth business nor did he sell under the name of the said two firms. Report would further show that above Lalan Kumar stated that firm Om Shankar belonged to Shankar Falls located at Damodar Market, Patna. On visit to Damodar Market by the officials of respondent No. 1, no -signboard or existence of said firm could be found. Cloth worth Rs. 29,918.75 as per the cash memos/bills filed was shown to have been 'purchased from Vimal Fancy Saree shop, Mall Road, Kanpur. In his report A. K. Singh, Surveyor stated that this firm was found to be not situated at Mall Road, Kanpur. Two bills for purchases from Dhuli Chand Narayan Das, Bhairav Gali, 3 bills (or purchases from M/s. Vastra Udyog, Maidagini, Varanasi and again 3 bills for purchases from M/s. Kala Niketan, Golkati Road, Varanasi were filed by the claimants. As may be seen from the report of K.K. Singh, there are no places known as Bhrirav Gali, Maidagini and Golkati Chowk in Varanasi. Bills for purchase of cloth from Govindam Jaidev and Sangam Fancy Sarees, Chandni Chowk, Delhi were further filed by Priyanka Matching Centre. Report of Malhotra Associates would show that both these firms could not be located in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. While settling claim for aforesaid amount of Rs. 49,969/-, the respondent No. 1 disallowed claim in respect of purchases from the said firms at Patna, Kanpur, Varanasi and Delhi. In regard to Sarees on trust of the total value of Rs. 83,904/ -, the appellant and/or his son did not explain " as to on what basis they had put the said value nor did they mention if the sarees received were brand new or used. In the backdrop of this evidence, no fault could be found in settling claim for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 49,969/- instead of the amount as recommended -by M/s. Bhadra and Associates. Moreover, State Commission has given cogent reason in reaching the conclusion that Rs. 49,969 /- were received towards full and final settlement of claim as alleged by respondent No. 1 Insurance Company. There is no legal infirmity in the order of State Commission warranting interference under Section 21(a)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.