State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Divakara Rao, Proprietor, vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on 3 July, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 320/2005
(Arisen out of order dated 13/10/2004 in Case No. A.513/1999 of District Alappuzha)
Divakara Rao.D
Vs.
The Bew India Insurance Co Ltd,Rep.by Divisional Manager
and Others
BEFORE :
Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN
, PRESIDING MEMBER
PRESENT:
None for the Appellant
None for the Respondent
Dated the 03 July 2010
ORDER
Disposed as Dismissed KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL Nos. 01/2005 & 320/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 03-07-2010 PRESENT:
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPEAL No. 01/2005 APPELLANTS
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, represented by Divisional Manager, Kottackal Arya Vaidya Sala Building, 1st Floor, Opposite Dwaraka Hotel, P.B. No. 2451, M.G. Road, Ernakulam.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., represented by the Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Alappuzha (Appellants are represented by the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No. 1, Kottarathil Buildings, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram.) (Rep. by Adv. Sri. M. Nizamudeen) Vs RESPONDENT Sri. Divakara Rao, Proprietor, M/s Rao & Company, Stationery Dealers, South Baazar, Cherthala.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. K.G. Mohandas Pai & others) APPEAL No. 320/2005 APPELLANT Divakara Rao, Proprietor, M/s Rao & Company, Cherthala.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. K.G. Mohandas Pai & others) Vs RESPONDENTS
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by the Divisional Manager, Kottakkal Arya Vaidya Sala Building, Opposite Dwaraka Hotel, M.G. Road, Ernakulam.
2. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Alappuzha (Appellants are represented by the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No. 1, Kottarathil Buildings, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram.) (Rep. by Adv. Sri. M. Nizamudeen) COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI . M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER These two appeals are preferred from the order dated 13th October 2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP No. 513/1999. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the par of the opposite parties 1 and 2 (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) in repudiating the insurance claim for Rs. 3,96,102/-. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim for Rs. 3,96,102/- by stating that no such theft of merchandise was happened in the burglary committed on the night of 12-02-1998 or in the morning of 13-02-1998. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP No. A-513/1999.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and two other witnesses on his side as PWs 2 and 3. Exts. P1 to P20 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of the opposite parties, the approved and licensed Surveyor who submitted B6 survey report was examined as RW1 and the investigator who was deputed by the opposite party/Insurance Company was examined as RW2 and the Branch Manager of the opposite party/New India Assurance Company was examined as RW3. Exts. B1 to B11 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite parties. The statement of stock-in-trade produced from Lord Krishna Bank, Cherthala Branch was marked as Ext.X1 series. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 13th October 2004 directing the opposite party New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs. 1,48,027/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and cost of Rs. 1,100/-. Aggrieved by the said order, Appeal No. 01/2005 is filed by the opposite parties therein and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Forum below Appeal No. 320/2005 is filed by the complainant in the said OP No. 513/1999.
3. We heard both sides. The appellant/complainant (Appeal No. 320/2005) submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the oral testimony of PW2, the Branch Manager of Lord Krishna Bank, Cherthala Branch and X1 series of statements of stock-in-trade produced by PW2. He also relied on the testimony of PW3, the Chartered Accountant who prepared P2 valuation statement of the stolen goods and P3 closing stock statement as on 12-02-1998 with respect to Rao and Company, Cherthala. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued for the position that the stock-in-trade worth Rs. 3,21,862.75 was lost in the burglary, which occurred between 9 p.m of 12-02-1998 and 9 a.m of 13-02-1998. Thus, the complainant justified his claim for Rs. 3,96,192/- and prayed for modifying the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to award a sum of Rs. 3,96,102/- with interest and costs. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties (Appeal No. 01/2005) pointed out the discrepancy in the statement given by the complainant/insured with respect to the burglary, which occurred in the shop room of the complainant. He relied on B10 copy of the FIR, B4 final report submitted by the police with respect to the crime relating to the burglary and also B6 survey report and argued for the position that there was no theft of the merchandise (stock-in-trade) in the burglary, which occurred during the night of 12-02-1998. He also relied on the testimony of RW1, the Surveyor who submitted B6 survey report. It is further submitted that there was no supporting materials to substantiate the case of the complainant regarding alleged theft of the stock-in-trade in the burglary, which occurred during the night of 12-02-1998. Thus, the appellants/opposite parties justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and also for dismissal of the complaint in OP No. A- 513/1999 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.
4. The points that arise for consideration in these two appeals are as follows:
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in OP No. A-513/1999 as alleged by the complainant?
2. Whether the opposite parties in OP No. A-513/1999 (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) can be justified in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant with respect to the stock-in-trade?
3. Whether the complainant/insured has succeeded in establishing his case that the merchandise (stock-in-trade) worth Rs. 3,96,102/- was lost in burglary, which occurred in the shop owned by the complainant?
4. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP No. A-513/1999?
5. The above two appeals are preferred from one and the same order passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP No. A 513/1999. Hence these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. These issues can also be considered together as these issues are interrelated and interconnected. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeals will be referred to according to their rank and status before the Forum below in OP No. A-513/1999.
6. Point Nos. 1 to 4 : There is no dispute that the complainant Sri. D. Divakara Rao as Proprietor of M/s Rao and Company had insured his shop with the merchandise (stock-in-trade), furniture and cash up to 10,000/- with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Period of the said insurance policy was from 02-03-1997 to 01-03-1998. The insured amount was for Rs. 5,00,000/-. There is also no dispute that a burglary took place in the complainant's shop between 9.30 p.m of 12-02-1998 and 9 a.m of 13-02-1998. The complainant noticed the aforesaid burglary at 9 am on 13-02-1998 when he opened his shop. It is also to be noted that on the same day burglary had also occurred in the adjacent two shop rooms. The complainant reported about the burglary to the police at 10 a.m on 13-02-1998. The Police registered Crime No. 58/98 of the Cherthala Police Station. The First Information Statement was given by the complainant. It is based on his First Information Statement the FIR was lodged by the Police. Et.B10 is copy of the FIR in Crime No. 58/1998 of Cherthala Police Station dated 13-02-1998. The First Information Statement is also incorporated in the said FIR.
7. The complainant has admitted the fact that he gave the First Information Statement and based on his First Information Statement the police registered Crime No. 58/98 of Cherthala Police Station and that he informed the police at 10 am on 13-02-1998. A perusal of the First Information Statement given by the complainant to the police would make it crystal clear that the burglar entered his shop by removing the tiles from the roof of the shop building and also by removing the ceiling of the shop room (A/ba =D*). It was also stated that theft of Rs. 24,000/- kept in the almirah and gold ornaments (4 gold rings weighing 1½ sovereigns, one gold bracelet weighing 2 sovereigns) worth Rs. 24,000/- were lost in the said burglary. It was also reported by the complainant to the Police that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was also stolen from the near by sugar shop owned by Ratnabai and that burglary also occurred in another adjacent shop room by name Sony Enterprises owned by N.A. Ouseph. The complainant had also given the description as to how the gold ornaments were kept in the almirah and also about the opening of the almirah with the key, which was kept in the draw of the table. The complainant was definite about the total loss of Rs. 48,000/- suffered by him due to the theft of the articles. He also gave a description of the shop room and its appearance after the burglary. It is specifically stated that the merchandise kept in the shop was seen lying in a scattered manner. It is further reported by the complainant that the burglar after committing burglary escaped through the very same entry, which he created by removing the tiles on the roof. There is no whisper in the First Information Statement about theft of the merchandise or stock-in-trade kept in his shop. The complainant had no manner of doubt about the theft of the merchandise in the said burglary which occurred between 9.30 p.m of 12-02-1998 and 9 am of 13-02-1998.
8. It is pertinent to note that the definite case of the complainant is that the stock-in-trade worth Rs. 3,21,862.75 was lost in the burglary. The complainant has also produced the list of the merchandise (stock-in-trade) with its value, which were stolen in the burglary. Ext.P3 is the list of the articles said to have been stolen from his shop. As per P3 list a total of 211 various items of stock-in-trade were stolen in the said burglary and the value of the stolen goods would come to Rs. 3,21,862.75. The description and the nature of the stolen articles are included in P3 (In the appendix to the impugned order value of the stolen goods as on 13-02-1998 is shown as Ext.P3). But the lower Court records would show that Ext.P2 is value of stolen goods as on 13-02-1998. The lower Court records would also show that there are two exhibits as P3. One is the letter dated 06-04-1998 issued by the Chartered Accountant Joseph Antony of Rajeev & Rajagopal Chartered Accountants and the other is closing stock statement as on 12-02-1998 of goods stolen. But, in the index the statement of stock before burglary is exhibited as P4 and that P2 is shown as the letter dated 06-04-1998. Thus, the list of the stolen articles would make it clear that it was very easy for the complainant to notice the alleged theft of so much of articles worth Rs. 3,21,862.75. If one or two items or items numbering less than 20 or 30 items were stolen from a shop having the stock worth Rs. 3,40,000/-, it may be correct to say that there was the possibility for the shop owner omitting to notice the theft or missing of the articles. But as far as the present case on hand is concerned, the alleged theft occurred with respect to 211 items of goods. This circumstance would show that the case of the complainant that he could not notice the theft of the stock-in-trade or merchandise cannot be believed for a moment. Had there occurred any such theft of the stock-in-trade kept in the shop, that fact would be noticed by the shop owner who noticed the entry of the burglar into his shop. So, the case of the complainant that he omitted to notice the theft of so much of goods cannot be accepted.
9. The complainant has got a case that he was not in a position to assess the exact number and value of the articles lost in the theft. The aforesaid case of the complainant can be believed and accepted. But, there was no hindrance for the complainant to report the police while giving the First information Statement that some of the goods (stock-in-trade) kept in his shop were also missing or that theft of some of the merchandise was also occurred. Nothing prevented the complainant to disclose that fact regarding theft of the stock-in-trade, which was kept in his shop room. So, the failure on the part of the complainant to give a vague idea about the theft of the stock-in-trade would give a strong and irresistible conclusion that there was no such theft of the stock-in-trade as alleged by the complainant in his claim form (B11) or in B1 complaint dated 20-02-1998 submitted before the Deputy superintendent of Police, Cherthala. It is only on 20-02-1998 the complainant reported to the Police about the alleged theft of stock-in-trade worth Rs. 3,70,000/-. It is also stated in B1 complaint that he came to know about theft of the stock-in-trade only when the stock was checked and that is why he omitted to mention about theft of the stock-in-trade while giving the First Information Statement to the Police. The aforesaid delay of 7 days in reporting the matter regarding the alleged theft of the stock-in-trade would also make the case of the complainant unbelievable and unacceptable.
10. On getting information regarding the burglary, the Police came to the scene of occurrence and prepared P1(a) scene mahazar. The aforesaid mahazar was prepared at 11 a.m on 13-02-1998. The aforesaid scene mahazar was prepared by making thorough inspection of the scene of occurrence. A perusal of P1 (a) mahazar would make it clear that the police searched and inspected the entire scene of occurrence including the place of entry for committing burglary. A detailed scene mahazar with all the details was prepared on 13-02-1998. But, the police could not notice or trace any article or any of the stock-in-trade on the way to the public road. It was the definite case of the complainant that the burglar entered his shop and the adjacent shops by removing the tiles of his shop room and also by removing the wooden planks in the ceiling (A/ba). The complainant was also sure and certain that the burglar left the shop through the very same entry. It was also reported that the burglar got his access to the roof of the shop room by climbing a tree standing close to the shop building. The Police could not notice any of the articles or stock-in-trade on the way or near the scene of occurrence. There was no indication available at the scene of occurrence regarding removal of any of the stock-in-trade from the shop of the complainant. The Police could not notice any mark or indication that the back door provided for the shop room was opened by the burglar. So, the scene of occurrence would also negative the case of the complainant regarding theft of the stock-in-trade.
11. On the basis of B1 complaint dated 20-02-1998, the Police prepared B2 additional mahazar dated 20-02-1998. In B2 scene mahazar, the Police made a search of the scene of occurrence based on B1 complaint made by the complainant. The Police who conducted the subsequent inspection of the scene of occurrence could not notice any marks or indication regarding entry through the back door of the shop room. The Police could notice the existence of spider webs and white ants on the said back door. Nothing-indicative of theft of the goods (stock-in-trade) noticed on the said back door or on the way to the public road. Thus, B2 mahazar does not support the case of the complainant regarding theft of the stock in trade.
12. Ext.P1(a) scene mahazar dated 13-02-1998 would show that the scene of occurrence was inspected by the finger print expert and the said finger print expert examined the scene of occurrence prior to the preparation of P1(a) scene mahazar. In P1 (a) mahazar, it is stated about the markings given by the finger print expert. Had there been any such entry of the burglar through the back door that fact should have been taken into consideration by the finger print expert. There was every possibility of taking the finger print on the said back door, if there was any such entry through the back door. Moreover, no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the complainant as to how he came to the conclusion that the stock-in-trade or other goods were removed by the burglar through the back door of the shop. Infact, there was no such visible indications to come to such a conclusion that the burglar left the scene of occurrence through the back door. On the other hand, the case of the complainant in his First Information Statement is that the burglar left the scene of occurrence through the very same entry, which he created by removing the tiles from the roof of the shop building. The aforesaid inconsistency and contradictory statement on the part of the complainant would make his case unacceptable. The case of the complainant in his First Information Statement is contradictory to his subsequent statement in B1 complaint dated 20-02-1998. These are the strong circumstances that would make the present case of the complainant unacceptable.
13. The complainant much relied on the testimony of PW2, the Manager of Lord Krishna Bank, Cherthala Branch. Ext.X1 series are the monthly statement of stock submitted by the complainant to the Lord Krishnan Bank, Cherthala Branch. X1 series of monthly statements of stock were produced by PW2. X1 series of statements are dated 04-04-95, 04-12-95 and from 04-01-96 to 04-12-96 and from 04-01-97 to 04-12-97 and also for the months of 04-01-98 and 04-02-98. X1 series of statements of stock would show that on all those months, the complainant had a stock of more than 4 lakhs up to November 1996 and thereafter more than 5 lakhs. The case of PW2 is that he took charge as Manager of Cherthala Branch of Lord Krishnan Bank on 01-06-1997 and thereafter he was convinced about the stock-in-trade. According to PW2, he had at least 15 occasions physically checked the stock position at the shop of the complainant and there was no stock difference at any time. But, there is nothing on record to show that PW2 as the Manager of Lord Krishna Bank, Cherthala Branch conducted inspection of the stock of the complainant's shop. There is no case for PW2 that at any occasion he had prepared inspection report. It is to be noted that there is no piece of paper available in the bank to evidence the stock inspection conducted by PW2, the Manager of Lord Krishna Bank, Cherthala Branch. In cross examination PW2 has categorically admitted the fact that on perusal of X1 series of statements of stock nothing could be seen that the physical verification was conducted by the Manager or any staff of the Lord Krishna Bank, Cherthala branch. It is to be noted that there will be movement register or some other registers maintained at the bank to denote the fieldwork conducted by the bank staff including the Manager. It is admitted by PW2 that for physical verification of the entire stock at least one full day is required. If that be so, there will be document evidencing inspection of the shop by the Manager or any other staff of the bank. There will be goods hypothecation register maintained by the Bank. If any such local inspection of the shop was conducted there will be an entry in the goods hypothecation register. But, no such case for PW2 regarding maintaining of any such stock hypothecation register. PW2 has also admitted that loan facility was given to the complainant under cash credit scheme and that stock statement and Balance Sheet are to be taken. But, PW2 is not sure about the fact whether such stock statement or Balance Sheet was prepared in the case of the complainant. PW2 does not know whether the complainant had exceeded the loan limit at any point of time.
14. Another important point to be noted at this juncture is the categorical admission made by PW2 that he had no occasion to verify the monthly stock statement with stock register, sales and purchase bills. It is deposed by PW2 that he never verified the stock register, sales and purchase bills. Then, how PW2 verified or ascertained the correctness of X1 series of monthly statements. So, the Forum below cannot be justified in relying on the testimony of PW2 and X1 series of monthly statements. It can be seen that the monthly statements were submitted by the complainant as an empty formality and that the Manager of the Lord Krishna Bank, Cherthala Branch like PW2 blindly relied on the entries in the monthly statements of stock. So, on the basis of the testimony of PW2 and X1 series of monthly statements of stock one could not come to the conclusion that there was such a stock of merchandise available at the shop of the complainant.
15. PW3 is the Chartered Accountant of Rajeev and Rajagopal Chartered Accountants. PW3 has admitted that he is not the Chartered Accountant of the complainant and that he is not aware of the fact as to whether the complainant has engaged any other Chartered Accountant for verification of his accounts and preparation of Balance Sheet. It is categorically admitted by PW3 that the complainant approached him for the purpose of preparing P2 and P3 documents. P2 is the list showing the value of stolen goods, as on 13-02-1998 and P3 is the closing stock statement as on 12-02-1998. PW3 has categorically admitted that he had no occasion to conduct physical verification of the stock. It is further admitted by PW3 that P2 and P3 statements were prepared based on the stock inventory produced by the complainant. But PW3 had no occasion to verify the genuineness and correctness of the stock inventory statements produced by the complainant. Another pertinent point to be noted at this juncture is the admission made by PW3 that he had no occasion to peruse the stock register. He does not know as to whether any stock register was being maintained by the complainant for his stock in trade. He further admitted that he does not see the sales and purchase ledgers. Evidence of PW3 would make it clear that the complainant approached him for the sole purpose of getting prepared P2 and P3 statements and prior to that or after that PW3 had no occasion to transact with the complainant. The evidence of PW3 would show that he just prepared P2 and P3 statement based on the statements given by the complainant. But, PW3 could not verify the correctness of the so called statements furnished by the complainant. Thus, it can be seen that P2 and P3 documents were created for the purpose of preferring the insurance claim. So, no reliance can be placed on P2 and P3 documents or on the testimony of PW3. The Forum below cannot be justified in relying on the testimony of PW3 and P2 and P3 statements prepared by him.
16. The complainant as PW1 has deposed that he was not in the habit of maintaining stock register. But, the complainant is relying on stock inventories, which are written in notebooks. A perusal of the entries in those stock inventories would show that the stock inventories are not maintained in just and proper manner. It can also be seen that the corresponding purchase bills and sales bills are also not properly proved. The sale details are not written in a just and proper manner and it is not possible to ascertain the person to whom the sales were effected. It is to be noted that as per the sale bills the complainant is an assessee under general sales tax. But, he has not produced any copy of the sales tax returns submitted by him. The stock inventories or the sales bills or purchase bills are not having any authenticity. The account books have not been produced before the sales tax authority or any other competent authority to testify the correctness of the entries in those account books. It is also to be noted that no daybook is maintained evidencing the sale and purchase transactions. There is also no properly maintained ledger. It is to be noted that the ledger is being maintained based on the entries in the daybook. But there is no corresponding daybook and ledger available for scrutiny. There is also nothing on record to show that those account books were verified by the sales tax authority or any other competent authority. So, no reliance can be placed on the so called account books produced by the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that these accounts are maintained regularly in the course of his business. So, no reliance can be placed on the accounts produced from the side of the complainant. The very appearance of the so called accounts maintained would give an inference that these accounts are prepared to substantiate the insurance claim. Thus, the evidence of PW1 regarding the stock available in his shop on 12-02-1998 cannot be believed or accepted.
17. According to PW1, he alone was maintaining the accounts for his business and that the purchase and sales are effected by the complainant himself. It is categorically deposed that no one else is to assist him in conducting the business. In such a situation it was very easy and convenient for the complainant to ascertain the alleged theft of the articles in the morning of 13-02-1998 itself. Thus, the case of the complainant regarding theft of the stock-in-trade cannot be believed.
18. The Forum below simply relied on B6 survey report submitted by RW1. Ext.B6 survey report and the testimony of RW1, the Surveyor would make it clear that he assessed the loss of merchandise due to theft based on the statement produced by the complainant. But nowhere it is stated that the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 1,48,027 on account of theft of the stock-in-trade. The Forum below was mistaken that the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,48,027/-. It is to be noted that the aforesaid assessment was made based on the report of the Chartered Accountant showing the stock value before burglary at Rs. 4,75,292.55. It is reported by the Surveyor that on inspection during survey he valued the stock balance after burglary at Rs. 3,27,265.16. Thereby the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,48,027.39 and rounded to 1,48,027/-. The statement at page 5 para 6 of the survey report would make it clear that the Surveyor had no occasion to ascertain the stock available before burglary. So, the Forum below cannot be justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,48,027/- by way of the insurance claim.
19. There can be no doubt about the fact that the complainant/insured has to establish his case regarding theft of the stock-in-trade. The complainant himself was not sure and certain about the theft of the stock-in-trade. At the first instance he would say that there was only theft of cash of Rs. 24,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs. 24,000/-. After 7 days he developed a case by filing B1 compliant dated 20-02-1998 alleging that stock of goods worth Rs. 3,70,000/- was lost in burglary. It was also asserted that the said loss was assessed at Rs. 370,000/- by verification of the stock-in-trade. But, in the complaint he would say that he assessed the loss of stock-in-trade amounting to Rs. 3,21,862.75. In the relief portion the complainant claimed a total of Rs. 3,96,102/- by way of his claim under the policy of insurance.
20. It is to be noted that as per X1 series of Stock statements dated 04-02-1998 the stock value as on 03-02-1998 was shown as Rs. 5,13,415/-. But, as per P3 closing stock statement as on 12-02-1998 the total value of the stock would come to Rs. 3,40,408.89. It would show that there was a sale of the stock-in-trade for Rs. 513415 - Rs. 340408.89 = Rs. 1,73,006.11. But Ext.P15 counterfoil of the sales bills would not show that such a sale of the stock-in-trade occurred between 04-02-1998 and 12-02-1998. This strong circumstance would make it crystal clear that the statement of stock-in-trade and value of the stock-in-trade and the sales bills produced are not reliable and those documents are liable to be rejected. So, this Commission have no hesitation to reject the accounts produced from the side of the complainant. The failure to maintain the stock register itself would make the case of the complainant regarding loss of merchandise by the burglary unbelievable and unacceptable. Thus, the opposite party New Indian Assurance Company is well justified in repudiating the insurance claim made by the compliant. The Forum below failed to appreciate the entire evidence, especially the documentary evidence available on record in its correct perspective. The Forum below has gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was loss of merchandise amounting to Rs. 1,48,027/-. We have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order dated 13-10-2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP No. A 513/1999. The complaint in OP No. A- 513/99 is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal preferred by the opposite parties in OP No. 513/1999 as Appeal No. 01/2005 is allowed and the Appeal No. 320/2005 filed by the complainant in OP No. A513/1999 is dismissed. The impugned order dated 13-10-2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in the said OP No. A-513/1999 is set aside. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Sr.
[ Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN]
PRESIDING MEMBER