National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V. Com on 25 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 180 of 2007 (From the Order dated 17.01.2007 in Consumer Dispute No.14/05 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. State Sector, 3-5-817/818, Hyderabad Regional Office Building, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh AND Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Opp. Charmas, Abids, Hyderabad (A.P.) Through Manager, Regional Office-I, Kanchanjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001 ..Appellants Vs. M/s. A.V. Com, Flat No.2, Sri Rama Apartments, Jayanagar Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad (A.P.) Rep. through, Its Proprietor, Sh. G. Ramakrishna Goud, ..Respondents BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate For the Respondent : N E M O PRONOUNCED ON: 25.02.2013 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT Appellant Insurance Company which was the Opposite Party before the State Commission has filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.01.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (in short, the State Commission) in CD No. 14/05 wherein the State Commission allowing the complaint, has directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rs.7,00,000/- towards the loss of the computer articles that were gutted during the fire accident and Rs.25,000/- towards rent) to the Respondent along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 1.3.04 till the date of payment. Rs.5,000/- were awarded towards costs.
FACTS:-
Complainant/Respondent proprietary firm obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No.051408/11/02/00743 from the Appellant covering all types of risks particularly fire and perils to their stock of computers and peripherals for the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. The policy was valid for the period from 28.03.03 to 27.3.04 (midnight). During the currency of the policy, on 21.12.03 at 19.45 hours, a fire broke out at the Respondents premises as a result of which the entire shop consisting of computer peripherals and consumables and its related items was totally burnt.
Upon receiving the intimation, Appellant appointed the Surveyor, M.M. Nageswara Rao to assess the loss and submit his report. Surveyor submitted his report on 02.08.04 assessing the loss at Rs.1,44,180/- against the claim of Rs.21,57,785/- made by the Respondent. Vide letter dated 19.08.04, Appellant offered to settle the claim at Rs.1,18,585/- and sent the claim vouchers. Respondent requested the Appellant to re-examine the matter and settle the claim at Rs.21,57,785/-. Since there was no response, Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission.
Appellant, on being served, put in appearance and filed its written statement contesting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds; that the Respondent itself verified the burnt items and the items in good conditions and prepared the physical inventory statement assessing the loss at Rs.1,44,180/-; that the physical inventory dated 23.12.03 was not identical items statement because it was containing rates, quantity and value and according the actual loss was assessed at Rs.1,44,180/-; that the physical inventory was signed by the Respondent; that the Surveyor vide letter dated 24.12.03, requested the Respondent to supply the documents, i.e, purchase invoices, income tax assessments, balance sheet etc. but the Respondent did not supply the same; that the Respondent and the Surveyor jointly prepared the physical inventory assessing the loss at Rs.1,44,180/- which was almost tallied with the Stock Statement shown to the Respondents Bank as on 10.12.03 at Rs.1,42,698/-
State Commission, discarding the report of the Surveyor and relying upon the Panchanama prepared by the Police and the Bank Statement furnished by the Respondent to the Bank, allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rs.7,00,000/- towards the loss of the computer articles that were gutted during the fire accident and Rs.25,000/- towards rent) to the Respondent along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 1.3.04 till the date of payment. Rs.5,000/- were awarded towards costs.
State Commission observed as under :-
On going through the panchanama we are of the opinion that the Police have noted some of the main items that were partly damaged and did not note some of the items since they could not be identified and became ash. It is clearly mentioned in the FIR and in the certificate issued by the Fire Station Officials that the entire shop of the complainant was burnt. In the statement submitted to the bank the complainant has clearly mentioned the list of articles and their value about Rs.21 lakhs. We, therefore, cannot accept the claim of the opposite parties that the surveyor has noted the items that were damaged in the fire accident in the presence of the complainant and assessed the value at Rs.1,44,180/-.
We have also perused the statement marked as Ex.A.20 showing the value of the articles gutted in the fire accident as per the stock register and also Ex.A-3, panchanama wherein the police have noted the main items that were found and damaged in the fire accident. On going through the EX.A-3 panchanama we find that the police could not identify some of the computer peripherals due to ashes and as per the panchanama the value of the articles that were gutted in the fire accident is about Rs.5,02,900/-. On going through the record, we find some of the major items like computer modems, CD writers and CD rom, hard disk drives, cartridges etc. which could not be individually identified were also completely burnt and became ashes. In items like software there will not be any salvage and its value has to be assessed taking into consideration its individual value.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the items could appropriately be valued at Rs.2,00,000/- in addition to the value shown as per the panchnama.
In all the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.
Appellant, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal.
Final hearing notice sent to the Respondent on 23.03.12 for 17.05.12 was received back with the postal remarks Left. Counsel for the Respondent did not appear. In spite of efforts made twice, Respondent could not be served. Notice by way of publication was taken out to serve the Respondent. Notice was published in the newspapers namely Times of India (National Daily), Secunderabad Edition and Namaste Telangana (Telugu local daily). Respondent did not appear and was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant at length.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant contends that the State Commission grossly erred in ignoring the report of the Chartered Accountant and the Surveyor who had assessed the loss based on the joint physical inventory of the damaged goods which was duly signed by the Respondent; that the inventory was prepared immediately after the loss and the Respondent had not denied having signed the same; that in the physical inventory each and every item damaged along with its rate has been listed elaborately and the total loss suffered by the Respondent was Rs.1,44,180/-; that the State Commission erred in relying upon the police panchanama when the joint physical inventory was signed and prepared by the Respondent himself about the goods damaged in the fire incident; that the sole reliance on the said document by the State Commission cannot be sustained in law; that the statement submitted to the Bank just 10 days before the loss was of almost the same amount as had been assessed by the Surveyor; that the State Commission erred in granting Rs.25,000/- towards rent in the absence of any evidence to that effect.
The facts of the case are not in dispute before us. Respondent insured the computer equipments with the Appellant Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- for the period from 28.03.03 to 27.03.04. A fire broke out at the Respondents premises on 21.12.03. The matter was reported to the police and a FIR No. 282 of 2003 was registered. Police authorities conducted a spot survey and prepared panchanama noting down the articles destroyed in the fire incident. Surveyor appointed by the Appellant assessed the loss at Rs.1,44,180/-. Appellant offered to settled the claim at Rs.1,18,585/- against the claim of Rs.21,57,785/- made by the Respondent.
Immediately, after the fire incident at the Respondents premises on 21.12.03, a joint physical inventory was prepared of the burnt items in the fire and the items in good condition which is reproduced as under:-
PHYSICAL INVENTORY STATEMENT AFTER THE FIRE ACCIDENT TAKEN ON 23.12.03 Sl.
No. Description Quantity Rate Amount
1.
Cabinet P4 ATX P3ATX 30 17 950/-
850/-
28,500/-
14,450/-
2. SMPS P4 ATX P3ATX 30 15 400/-
350/-
12,000/-
5,250/-
3. Key Boards Multi Media Normal 18 20 500/-
250/-
9900/-
5000/-
4. P4 Processor
5. Hard Disk Drive
6. CD Roms
7. Mouses 5 300 1500/-
8. USB Cables
9. Optical Mouse
10. Wooper Speakers
11. Multi Media Speakers
12. UPS 2 3700/-
7400/-
13. Floppy Drives 2 525/-
1050/-
14. FDD Cables
15. HDD Cables
16. Gower Cables 14 65/-
910/-
17. Monitors 1 8500/-
8500/-
18. Modems
19. Printers 2 7500/-
15000/-
20. Mother Board 6 4600/-
27600/-
21. Cart 5 cable 1 3000/-
3000/-
22. VGA Card 8 365/-
2920/-
23. External 1 1200/-
1200/-
TOTAL 1,44,180/-
OUT OF THE TOTAL ITEMS GOOD CONDITIONS Sl.
No. Description Quantity Rate Amount
1. SMPS P4 4 400/-
1600/-
2. ATX P 3 3 850/-
2550/-
The above joint physical inventory statement was signed by the Surveyor and the Respondent. On the basis of joint physical inventory statement, the Surveyor, B. Nageswara Rao assessed loss at Rs.1,18,585/-. State Commission relying upon the panchanama, came to the conclusion that the value of the articles gutted in the fire was Rs.5,02,900/- and since some of the major items had not been mentioned in the panchanama the total value of the goods destroyed in the fire was Rs.7,00,000/-. The finding recorded by the State Commission reads as under:-
We have also perused the statement marked as Ex.A.20 showing the value of the articles gutted in the fire accident as per the stock register and also Ex.A-3, panchanama wherein the police have noted the main items that were found and damaged in the fire accident. On going through the EX.A-3 panchanama we find that the police could not identify some of the computer peripherals due to ashes and as per the panchanama the value of the articles that were gutted in the fire accident is about Rs.5,02,900/-. On going through the record, we find some of the major items like computer modems, CD writers and CD rom, hard disk drives, cartridges etc. which could not be individually identified were also completely burnt and became ashes. In items like software there will not be any salvage and its value has to be assessed taking into consideration its individual value.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the items could appropriately be valued at Rs.2,00,000/- in addition to the value shown as per the panchnama.
In all the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.
The finding recorded by the State Commission is factually incorrect. In the Panchanama, the value of the articles that were gutted in the fire incident, has not been mentioned. State Commission has wrongly mentioned that in the panchanama the price of the goods destroyed in the fire was Rs.5,02,900/-.
The relevant paragraph of the panchanama reads as under:-
In such burnt materials Cahinets-50, Key Board 25, Power Supply Units 50, Processors 60, One monitor mother board -5, Ups -3, Printer 1, floppy disk driver (FDD)-4, some Modames, Cable bundle-1, some Power cables, some Walkies, one Tata-telephone, etc. material got burns.
The value of the articles destroyed in the fire has not been mentioned anywhere in the panchanama. State Commission has further held that some of the major items had not been mentioned in the panchanama. On comparing the articles mentioned in the panchanama and in the inventory statement prepared by the Surveyors which is signed by the Respondent, we find that the items mentioned in the panchanama are much more in number then mentioned in the joint inventory statement prepared by the Surveyor and the Respondent. Finding recorded by the State Commission that some major items had not been mentioned in the panchanama cannot be accepted. State Commission without identifying the items which may have been left out has awarded compensation for them. Even as per bank statement submitted by the Respondent with their Banker on 10.12.03, i.e. just 10 days before the date of fire incident, the value of the stock was assessed at Rs.1,42,698/- which is approximately the loss assessed by the Surveyor. For the reasons stated above, finding recorded by the State Commission that the loss was to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/- cannot be accepted. Surveyor had rightly assessed the loss at Rs.1,18,585/-. We hold that the Respondent is entitled to the sum assessed by the surveyor, i.e. Rs.1,18,585/- which is rounded to Rs.1,20,000/-.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the Appellant Insurance Company shall be liable to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the Respondent along with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 1.6.04 (after six months of the incident) till the date of payment.
At the time of admission hearing on 10.04.07, this Commission passed the following order:-
Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Kishore Rawat, for the insurance company. He submitted that there is no justifiable ground for assessing the loss at Rs.7 lakh.
He pointed out that the alleged Panchnama prepared by the Police cannot be the basis for assessment of loss. On the contrary, it is his contention that loss was jointly inventorized by the insurance company and the complainant. As per the inventory, the loss was assessed at Rs.1,44,180/-.
In view of the aforesaid submission. Admit.
Notice returnable on 12th March, 2008. Meantime, operation of the impugned order is stayed on the condition, that within a period of 4 weeks from today, the appellant would pay to the complainant, in all, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from 1.6.2004 (after 6 months of the incident) till its payment.
Mr. Hemal K. Sheth, waives notice on behalf of the Respondent.
In compliance of our order dated 10.04.07, Appellant Insurance Company sent a cheque No.971138 dated 26.04.07 for an amount of Rs.1,26,820/- to the Respondent. Vide letter dated 18.09.07, Respondent returned the said cheque and requested the Appellant to deposit the amount with the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant has deposited the amount with the State Commission. State Commission is directed to release the amount to the Respondent along with accrued interest if not already withdrawn by the Respondent.
Registry is directed to refund the sum of Rs.35,000/- deposited by the Appellant as statutory deposit along with accrued interest to the Appellant.
.. . . . . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd/*