Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Classic Glass And Plywood Center vs M/S. The New India Assurance Company ... on 4 July, 2018
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6217/2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 28733/2017)
M/s Classic Glass and Plywood Center .....Appellant
Versus
M/s The New India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. ....Respondents
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By this appeal, the final judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1630 of 2016 is questioned by the appellant. By the impugned judgment, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reversed the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Varanasi as well as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P and reduced the compensation from Rs. 5 lakhs (as awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) to Rs. 1,17,072/-.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are, that the appellant is running a shop in the name and style of M/s Classic Glass and Plywood Center at Nagwa Chungi, opposite Ghat, Varanasi. He took an insurance of the said shop from the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.07.10 16:38:43 IST Reason: first respondent for a period from 18.11.2002 to 17.11.2003 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. In the early hours of 20.11.2002, fire brokes out in the shop of the appellant. 2 Immediately, he gave information to the police and fire brigade, who came to the spot and extinguished the fire within about three hours. Because of fire accident, the stock available in the shop of the appellant was burnt. Appellant, therefore, claimed compensation from the first respondent, but the same was refused. Hence, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Varanasi, for compensation of entire loss of Rs. 6 lakhs from all respondents, Rs. 1 lakh for mental harassment and Rs. 2 lakhs for damages and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses along with 12% interest. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the claim of the appellant in part awarding Rs.5 lakhs as compensation along with Rs. 10,000 interest to be paid to the appellant as well as Rs. 4000/- as litigation costs. On appeal by the first respondent, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P, in Appeal No. 264/2010 upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Challenging both the orders, the first respondent approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which reduced the compensation along with 10% interest to Rs.1,17,072/- with 6% interest.
4. Having heard the Ld. Advocates on both the sides, we are of the opinion that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi was not justified in reducing the compensation from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs. 1,17,072/-. The Fire Brigade, which is an independent authority, though not an expert in the field, revealed in the report that the estimated loss suffered by the appellant was to the tune of Rs.4,96,000/-. This report is ignored by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 3 Commission merely on the ground that the fire brigade is not an authorised surveyor. Though fire brigade is not an authorized surveyor, it cannot be disputed that it is an independent organisation of the State. There is no reason for the fire brigade to give a favourable report in favour of the appellant. The fire brigade is the first entity to come to spot and extinguish fire. However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission proceeded to rely upon the report of the surveyor deputed by the Insurance Company, who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,17,072/-. There is nothing on the record to show that the said surveyor was a qualified surveyor as per IRDA guidelines.
5. Moreover, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has erred in observing that the plywood which was burnt, was stored in the godown and since the godown is not insured, no damages can be awarded in favour of the appellant by the Insurance Company. Undisputedly, the shop and the godown are situated in the same premises. Godown is at the first floor and shop at the ground floor. The appellant is vendor of plywood sheets, therefore, he is bound to store plywood in the premises. The first floor of the premises is an integral part of the shop and the policy issued by the Insurance Company has not made any distinction between the shop and the godown. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum have given concurrent findings of fact in that regard, for which we agree.
6. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. 4 The judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, as confirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
..........................................J. (N.V. Ramana) ............................................J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar) New Delhi Dated July 04, 2018 5 ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.7 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28733/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-07-2017 in RP No. 1630/2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) M/S. CLASSIC GLASS AND PLYWOOD CENTER Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA 110752/2017 – APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING OT.) Date : 04-07-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Diksha Ojha, Adv.
Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Navdeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. R.K. Sinha, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed Order is placed on the file)