National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Lavlesh Singh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 11 October, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2311 OF 2008 (From the order dated 16.05.2007 in First Appeal No. 1261/1996 & 1306/1996 of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Lavlesh Singh proprietor Lovely Provision Store c/o Shivarpan Trading Co. Babaru Road, Kalu Kunwa, Banda 210 001. ... Petitioner Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Divisional Office at 497, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi Branch Office at Dhima Chauraha, Aliganj, District Banda Respondent BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 11th OCTOBER 2013 O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 16.05.2007, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 1261/1996, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Lavlesh Singh, and FA No. 1306/1996, Lavlesh Singh versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vide which the State Commission modified the order dated 12.08.1996 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banda. The District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/petitioner Lavlesh Singh and order to compensate him by paying Rs.91,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, but partly allowed the appeal filed by the OP/respondent and reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner runs a general store and stationery shop in the name of Lovely Provision Store at Moh. Chhawni Road, District Banda. As per the complaint, he made an investment of approx. Rs.2 lakh in the shop and had got it insured for the period from 2.03.1993 to 1.03.1994 vide insurance policy number 17286 for an amount of Rs.1.7 lakh.
The said shop caught fire on the intervening night of 26/27.02.1994, whereupon the local fire brigade arrived at the spot and extinguished the fire. Information about the incident was also given to local Police. It has been stated that there was a loss of Rs.1.5 lakh due to fire to the stocks and furniture of the shop. The OP insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss and the said surveyor stated that the loss was to the extent of Rs.13,733.48ps. only. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum and the said Forum awarded a sum of Rs.91,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. stating that the Fire Department had assessed the loss to that extent. Two appeals were filed against the said order of the District Forum one by the complainant for enhancement of compensation and the other by the insurance company. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the complainant but partly allowed the appeal filed by the OP Insurance Company and directed that a sum of Rs.25,000/- be paid to the insurance company as compensation along with interest @9% p.a. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.
3. It was stated before us at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the survey report in question did not reflect correct picture about the loss and in fact, the survey report had been submitted after the filing of the complaint in question. It has been demanded in the petition that a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh should be awarded along with interest @ 24% p.a. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with the facts on record and they had not filed any petition against this order although a sum of Rs.25,000/- had been awarded against assessment of loss made by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.13,733.48 only.
4. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A careful perusal of the facts of the case indicates that the surveyor assessed the loss of stock at Rs.12,333.55ps. but he stated in his report that the insured had not submitted sufficient evidence and documents in support of purchase of stocks and hence after making a deduction of 30%, the surveyor arrived at a figure of Rs.8,638.48ps. for loss of stock. The surveyor further stated that there was loss of Rs.5100/- only to furniture and fittings and in this way, the total loss was assessed at Rs.8,633.48ps. + Rs.5,100 = Rs.13,733.48ps. The surveyor also mentioned that the insured has taken excess coverage of stocks and assets. The surveyor has also stated that the insured did not maintain any books of accounts, stock register, cash memo etc. and he did not produce any documentary evidence regarding the insured stocks. The insured is also not paying any sales tax / income tax etc. and he was not preparing any profit and loss statement or balance-sheet and hence, there was no authentic figure of purchase and sales etc.
5. In the grounds of revision petition, the petitioner has stated that they had submitted documentary evidence about the stocks to the surveyor and insurance company, but they have not substantiated their statement by referring to any particular document etc. In the light of these facts, it is clear that the order passed by the State Commission vide which they have awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant against the estimated figure of Rs.13,733.48ps. by the surveyor, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error. The said order has not been challenged by the insurance company by way of filing revision petition etc.
6. Based on the discussion above, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/