State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Ramesh Chand vs Divisional In-Charge, New India ... on 20 October, 2023
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 135/2020
Date of Presentation: 26.11.2020
Order Reserved on :05.10.2023
Date of Order :20.10.2023
___
Shri Ramesh Chand (Prop) of M/S Ramesh General Store son
of Shri Gian Chand, R/O VPO and Tehsil Baldwara, District
Mandi, HP.
...... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1. Divisional In-charge (O) NIA, O/O Divisional Office, 3rd Floor,
Block 7, SDA Complex, Shimla-9.
2. Division In-charge, Division Office NIA, O/O Hospital Road,
Mandi Town, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP.
3. Senior Branch Manager, New India Assurance (NIA), Main
Bazar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, HP.
4. Branch Manager, HP State Co-operative Bank, Branch Office
Baldwara, Tehsil Baldawara, District Mandi, HP.
....Respondents/opposite Parties.
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Mr.R.K.Verma, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr.Abhinav Chandel, Advocate
vice Mr. K.K.Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3:Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr.Virender Sharma, Advocate
vice Ms.Reeta Thakur Advocate.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Ramesh Chand Versus Divisional Incharge (O) NIA & Ors.
(F.A. No.135/2020)
Per Mr. R.K.Verma, Member
ORDER
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Mandi, in Consumer Complaint No.43/2019, titled Ramesh Chand Vs. Divisional In-charge (O) NIA & Ors. Brief facts of Case:
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is the sole proprietor of M/S Ramesh General Store, VPO and Tehsil Baldwara. He is running the business of readymade garments and allied products for the last more than twenty years. For carrying on the business, financial assistance has been extended by the opposite party No.4 in the shape of CC limit. Loan installments were paid/deposited by him timely with the financer bank (Opposite Party No.4). CC limit of Rs.6,00,000/- was sanctioned and granted by the opposite party No.4 against hypothecation of stock/readymade items lying in his rented business premises/shop after visiting the shop and verifying the facts. To secure the loan money, stock/shop was got insured by the opposite party No.4 from the opposite parties No.1 to 3. The Shop Keepers Insurance Policy valid from 01.08.2017 to 31.07.2018 was issued by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and total sum insured was 2 Ramesh Chand Versus Divisional Incharge (O) NIA & Ors.
(F.A. No.135/2020) Rs.7,50,000/-. On 31st August, 2017 (date wrongly mentioned in the complaint. Correct date is 30th August, 2017), around 9.00 P.M., fire broke out in his business premises. In the fire, stock/material lying in the shop and relevant documents viz bills, vouchers etc. were destroyed. Rapat No.25, dated 30.08.2017 in this regard was entered in Police Post, Hatli, Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (HP). Matter was reported by him to the opposite party No.4 and the Village Revenue Officer. On 01.09.2017, officials of the opposite party No.4 and Shri Deepak Sood, Surveyor of the opposite parties No.1 to 3, visited the spot to verify the facts and start the process of settling the claim. Surveyor properly inspected the damaged material lying inside the shop and asked the complainant to submit the required documents such as stock book, purchase bills, sale record etc. so that the loss can be estimated. The complainant honestly apprised the Surveyor and the officials of the opposite parties that he is not in a position to produce the purchase bills etc. since they were gutted in fire. The claim was not settled by the opposite parties/insurance company. Legal notice dated 25.11.2018 (Annexure-A14) was addressed to the opposite parties. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 treated the claim as "No Claim‟ vide letter dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure 3 Ramesh Chand Versus Divisional Incharge (O) NIA & Ors.
(F.A. No.135/2020) A15). Hence, the present complaint.
3. The complaint has been contested by the opposite parties by filing separate replies.
Opposite parties No.1 to 3 (insurance company) in their joint reply have denied that the complainant is running a shop at Baldwara. The complainant has not produced any proof in the shape of rent deed, rent receipt etc. to show that he is/was in possession of the shop/business premises. However, Shop Keepers Insurance Policy was purchased by the complainant. After receiving information regarding alleged occurrence, Er. Deepak Sood, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, was appointed to assess the loss and submit his report. Requiste documents were never made available by the complainant. He is required to be directed to co-operate with them (Opposite parties No.1 to 3) and supply the required documents so that the needful can be done. The claim was rightly treated as "No Claim‟.
4. The opposite party No.4 (bank) in its reply has stated that the complainant is running a shop of readymade garments and other goods. CC limit of Rs.6,00,000/- was sanctioned against hypothecation of stock after visiting the shop and verifying the stock. Stock was insured by the opposite party No.3 with the insurance company. Fire broke out on 4 Ramesh Chand Versus Divisional Incharge (O) NIA & Ors.
(F.A. No.135/2020) 31.08.2017. Total stock and other articles were damaged. Officials of the bank (Opposite Party No.4) and Surveyor of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 inspected the spot on 01.09.2017 and prepared the report of loss. The complainant was advised to procure documents demanded by the Surveyor for assessment of loss. The opposite party No.4 is entitled to recover loan installments and interest from the complainant. Insurance claim, if any, is to be paid by the opposite parties No.1 to 3.
5. In rejoinders, the complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint and refuted the objections put forth by the opposite parties.
6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
7. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant against the opposite parties No.1 to 3/Insurance company.
8. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
9. We have heard learned counsel of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/Insurance company and perused the written 5 Ramesh Chand Versus Divisional Incharge (O) NIA & Ors.
(F.A. No.135/2020) submissions filed on behalf of the appellant/complainant and also gone through the record carefully.
10 As per the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant/complainant the impugned order passed by the learned District commission below is bad in law. The appellant/complainant has further submitted that the learned District Commission below did not consider many material facts and evidence on record. The prayer of the complainant to produce the copy of trade and profit & loss account for the year ending 30.08.2017 was wrongly and illegally refused by the learned District commission below as a result of which the appellant/complainant was deprived of his right to cross examine the surveyor. The findings returned by the learned District Commission are mainly based upon the report of the surveyor which is not based upon correct facts and figures. As the shop of the appellant was completely gutted in fire, therefore, he is entitled for the insured amount. The complainant/appellant prays that the appeal of the appellant be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
11. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 3/insurance company has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission below and submitted that the same is based upon correct 6 Ramesh Chand Versus Divisional Incharge (O) NIA & Ors.
(F.A. No.135/2020) appreciation of facts and law. He has further submitted that there is no evidence to enhance the award amount and prays that the appeal of the appellant/complainant be dismissed. FINDINGS
12. There is no dispute between the parties that the shop of the appellant/complainant was insured with the opposite party/Insurance company and that the incident of fire had taken place in the said premises during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The dispute between the parties is with respect to the quantum of compensation. The learned District Commission has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,26,738/- on the basis of the report of the surveyor, whereas the complainant has sought enhancement of the compensation up to insured amount of Rs.7,50,000/-.
13. The fate of this case hinges around the validity of the report of the surveyor dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure OP1-2). It is a settled law that the report of the surveyor cum loss assessor is important document for purpose of assessment of loss. It is true that the report of the surveyor is not the last and the final approved word, nevertheless it cannot be discarded or ignored without any valid justification.
7
Ramesh Chand Versus Divisional Incharge (O) NIA & Ors.
(F.A. No.135/2020)
14. Perusal of the report of the surveyor dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure OP1-2) would reveal that the surveyor had conducted physically inspected the burnt business premises of the appellant and prepared his report on the basis of various documents supplied by the appellant/complainant and the bank (opposite party No.4). This report is detailed one and the conclusions reached at by the surveyor are supported by necessary data and reasons. The appellant has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to rebut this report. No effort was also made by the complainant to cross-examine the surveyor to discredit his report. In view of this, the learned District Commission below has not committed any legal infirmity to accept this report.
15. The appellant/complainant had moved an application under section 151 CPC at the stage of arguments for placing on record the copy of trade and profit & loss account for the year ending 30.08.2017 which was issued by a Chartered Accountant. The document sought to be produced by the complainant was prepared by the Chartered Accountant without any documentary proof and as such the same could not have advanced the case of the complainant any further. The application filed by him was rejected by the learned District commission below by giving cogent and convincing reasons and 8 Ramesh Chand Versus Divisional Incharge (O) NIA & Ors.
(F.A. No.135/2020) we also do not find any reason to disagree with the reasons given by the District commission below.
16. In view of the above stated facts, the appellant has failed to make out any case for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned District commission below.
17. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned District Commission below and same does not require any interference. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant/complainant fails and same is hereby dismissed.
18. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
19. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of District Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President R.K.Verma Member Manoj 9