State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Birender Singh & Another on 14 February, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 74 / 2011
National Insurance Company Limited
Through Regional Manager
Rajpur Road, Dehradun
......Appellant/ Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Birender Singh
S/o Sh. Chait Singh
R/o Monna, Patwari Area, Chekuda
Tehsil Thrali, District Chamoli
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Uttaranchal Gramin Bank
Through Branch Manager
Uttaranchal Gramin Bank
Branch Harmani, Tehsil Thrali
District Chamoli, Uttarakhand
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Surendra Prashar, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 14/02/2013
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 24 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 1 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. and has directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant insured amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss and Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of litigation within one month from the date of order, failing which the complainant has also 2 been held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of the order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant Sh. Birender Singh had taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Uttaranchal Gramin Bank - opposite party No. 2 for his self-employment and started an electronic shop. The said electronic shop was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd.- opposite party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On 09.11.2007, when the complainant reached his home after closing his shop, he was telephonically informed that a fire has broken-out in his shop. The complainant has alleged that all the electronic items kept in the shop worth Rs. 5,00,000/- got gutted in fire. The complainant lodged the report of the incident on 10.11.2007 with the P.S. Tharali; on 13.11.2007 with the S.D.M.; Tharali and on 16.11.2007 with the Tehsildar, Tharali. The complainant also informed about the incident to the opposite party No. 2 - Bank and the bank in-turn informed the insurance company. After one month, the spot inspection was done by the surveyor of the insurance company, who took signatures of the complainant on three blank papers. The complainant wrote letters to the insurance company for settlement of his claim, but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of insurance company, complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Chamoli.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that it has not made any deficiency in service. The insurance company has also pleaded that the complainant did not provided any stock register, income tax register and sale tax register to it. It has also pleaded that short-circuit is the main reason of fire in complainant's shop. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay insured amount to the complainant.
4. The bank filed written statement before the District Forum and contested the consumer complaint.
35. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above terms vide impugned order dated 24.03.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the District Forum did not consider the surveyor's report wherein the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 42,044/-. Accordingly, the appellant had remitted an amount of Rs. 41,814/- to the complainant through a bank draft dated 05.05.2009. Thus, the appellant has not committed any deficiency in service.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - complainant argued in support of the impugned order and pleaded that the actual loss was much more than the insured amount. He submitted that the appellant, while settling respondent No. 1- complainant's claim, did not consider the stock's details submitted to the bank - respondent No. 2, copies of the purchase invoices dated 13.09.2007 and 23.09.2007 and also the report of the Patwari of the area, who had inspected the site and has assessed the loss at Rs. 5,00,000/-.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - bank reiterated the facts of the case.
10. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In such disputes, the surveyor's report is significant, but the District Forum has failed to consider it. The District Forum has also not given any reason as to why the surveyor's report cannot relied upon. Per contra, the District Forum has opined its view in respect of loss on the basis of other documents such as Patwari's report, statement of stock submitted to bank etc. We perused the report of Patwari (Paper No. 67) 4 who has estimated the loss at Rs. 5,00,000/-, but has not given any basis for this estimate. Therefore, the report cannot be relied upon. Similarly, the details of stock submitted to respondent No. 2- the bank on 01.10.2007 and 01.11.2007 are not verifiable from the account books, because respondent No. 1 does not maintain any account books and he is not an assessee of income tax or sales tax. Therefore, in absence of any account books, the surveyor has assessed the loss on the basis of the details of burnt stock and saved stock. These details are at Paper Nos. 35, 36 and 37 and, accordingly, the value of the burnt goods, including the items such as bulbs, audio cassettes holder, torch etc., comes to Rs. 1,04,572.18. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted in this regard that the insurance policy covers the stock in trade as well as furniture, fixtures and fittings and pointed out to surveyor's report (Paper No. 24) wherein the surveyor has said that the policy covers stock in trade including furniture, fixtures and fittings. After perusing the details of burnt stock, we do not find that the complainant has shown these items in the list of burnt goods. However, the surveyor has assessed the loss on the basis of the inventory (Paper Nos. 35 and 36) and has left without giving any reason, the inventory at Paper No. 37. In our opinion, the value of these items (Paper No. 37) should also be added while assessing the loss. The surveyor has not explained in his report as to why he had left these items. Therefore, the actual loss comes out to Rs. 1,04,572.18 and not Rs. 93,392.18 as shown by the surveyor in his report at Paper No. 28. The surveyor has also made certain deductions from the gross assessed loss, but he has not explained as to why these deductions were made. If the surveyor has assessed the loss on the basis of the inventory of burnt goods, then there is no point for making a deduction of 25% for not keeping the account books. Similarly, the appellant has not indicated the relevant clause of the insurance policy, which permits a deduction of Rs. 10,000/-. We also fail to understand that the burnt electronic and electrical goods can have some salvage value, because such goods, if burnt, are of no use. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the respondent No. 1 should be compensated 5 for a loss of Rs. 1,04,572/- and the appellant has adopted a very-very narrow approach while assessing the net and payable loss by making various deductions from the gross assessed loss. Such an approach also amounts to deficiency in service and as such the complainant is also entitled to an interest on the above amount of Rs. 1,04,572/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment. The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, therefore, there is no question to grant separate compensation towards mental agony. An amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum is perfectly justified. The impugned order is modifiable accordingly.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 23.03.2011 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli, is modified to the extent that the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum, is reduced to Rs. 1,04,572/-. The insurance company is also directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of Rs. 1,04,572/- from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses as awarded by the District Forum. Cost of the appeal made easy.
(MRS. KUSUMLATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)