National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jadhav Kirana Stores on 28 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)CPJ79(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant Jadhav Kirana Stores, had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had a Kirana store which was insured for Rs. 5,00,000/- for a period between 21.2.1995 and 20.2.1996. There was a fire episode on the night between 17th and 18th June 1995 causing damage to the stocks of grams in the shop of the complainant. The matter was reported to the authorities as also to the petitioner, who had appointed a Surveyor based on whose report, it was settled on a non-standard basis for Rs. 64,000/-, whereas the complainant's claim was for Rs. 1,96,950/-. Not satisfied with the relief given by the petitioner, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- along with interest @ 18% from 18.6.1995 till the date of payment as also cost of Rs. 5,000/-. An appeal filed before the State Commission was dismissed, hence this revision petition.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. There cannot be any dispute that as has been held by the Apex Court as also this Commission, the report of the Surveyor is an important document and should not be shunned without sufficient reasons. In the present case, the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 85,344/- whereas the claim of the petitioner was settled at Rs. 64,000/-. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perusal of material on record, we find no ground for the petitioner to settle the claim at Rs. 64,000/-. When assessment of loss by the Surveyor is placed at Rs. 85,344/-, nothing has been brought on record as to why the claim of the complainant was treated on non-standard basis.
4. We are also not inclined to agree with the findings of quantum of loss returned by the District Forum and State Commission. We find it somewhat intriguing that the State Commission, contrary to the law, has placed greater reliance on the report of the loss drawn up by the Revenue Authorities and also the loss mentioned in the Police Panchanama and held "It is not imperative that the loss evaluated by assessor should be accepted". In our view, this is contrary to the law laid down by this Commission in the case of "Roshan Lal Oils Mills Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd". As referred to earlier that the Suveyor in this case in its report has clearly spelt out the reasons of arriving at the conclusion which it did after going through the lists of loss amounting to Rs. 1,96,950/-. Upon due consideration and based on whatever material was produced, the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 90,000/-and after deduction the salvage valued at Rs. 10,000/- he assessed the net loss at Rs. 80,000/- and odd adding loss of furniture and fixture and loss of profit due to interruptions, he assessed the loss at Rs. 85,344/-. This report was before the District Forum. There is no iota of material on record to challenge any of these figures and several other entries made therein, while assessing the loss.
5. In the absence of any thing to the contrary, backed by evidence, we are inclined to accept the report of the Surveyor, which has been held to be an important document, in view of which we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission, which are set aside. The complainant would be entitled to Rs. 85,344/-along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 2 months after the report of the Surveyor, i.e., 1.11.1995 till the date of payment as also cost awarded by the District Forum. The petitioner has already paid Rs. 64,000/-, + Rs. 50,000/-already drawn by the complainant, which was deposited by the petitioner before the lower Fora. With a view to settle the matter and to bring an end to litigation, we find that whatever has been paid should become the settlement amount towards full and final settlement between the parties and order accordingly. To this extent the Revision Petition is allowed.
5. No order as to costs.