At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Parinav Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Harsh Kumar, Advocate.
The petitioner/complainant was running a cloth shop and had obtained an insurance policy for the period from 10.08.2001 to 09.08.2002 for a sum assured of Rs. 8,00,000/-. A fire broke out in the shop of the complainant in the night of 30.03.2002. Fire brigade was called to douse the fire and the police was also informed. On being informed, the Insurer appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 41505/-. That amount was not acceptable to the complainant who approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking payment of Rs. 4,10,000/- with compensation.
2. Then complaint was resisted by the Insurer which, inter alia, stated in its reply that the surveyor had fairly and correctly assessed the loss of the complainant. The District Forum vide its order dated 05.10.2005 directed the Insurer to pay a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- to the complainant after deducting salvage. Interest @ 9% p.a. was also awarded to the complainant.
3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the Insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide its order dated 07.04.2011 the State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the Insurer to pay a sum of Rs. 1,18,125/- to the complainant along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
4. Being still dissatisfied the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has submitted that the report of the surveyor was not accepted either by the District Forum or by the State Commission. He has also stated that the account statements obtained by the surveyor would show that the complainant had stock of about Rs. 7,00,000/- in the shop. The learned counsel has also pointed that that as per the intimation given by the bank to the surveyor the bank also inspected the shop of the complainant from time to time for checking the stock.
6. A perusal of the survey report would show that no reliance can be placed upon the stock statements referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. The stock statements are prepared by the borrower and not by the bank, though they are periodically submitted to the bank as a requirement of the bank while sanctioning the correct facility. The report of the surveyor on page 67 of the paper book very clearly shows that the stock statements were not correct and seem to have been prepared only with a view to justify the claim. It is noted by the surveyor that there was several anomalies in the stock statements. I need not go into the details of anomalies which have been pointed out in detail for the period from March, 01 to March, 02 on internal page 8 of the survey report.
7. The surveyor noted that at the end of April, the stock shown was Rs. 7.11 lakhs, indicating increase to Rs. 0.17 lakhs from March, 2001 whereas purchase and sale in the intervening period were Rs. 0.48 lakhs and Rs. 1.56 lakhs respectively. Therefore, the stock shown at the end of April, 2001 cannot be correct. Similarly, stock at the end of August, 2001 was shown at Rs. 6.86 lakhs whereas the closing stock of July, 2001 was Rs. 7.02 lakhs. The purchases during July were nil and the sale was Rs. 1.4 lakhs. This again shows that the fudged stock statements were given by the complainant. The stock at the end of January, 2002 was shown as Rs. 6.96 lakhs whereas the closing stock of December, 2011 was Rs. 6.91 lakhs. There was no purchase in the month of January and sale was Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Thus the stock shown at the end of January, 2002 was highly inflated. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the stock statements which have been fudged by the complainant/petitioner. The order of the State Commission is based upon the photographs which show 225 burnt rolls and computing the price at Rs. 25/- per meter the State Commission arrived at a figure of Rs. 1,18,125/-. The order passed by the State Commission has not been challenged by the Insurance Company and, therefore, I need not go further on this aspect of the matter. Suffice it would be to say that the comp
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ensation awarded by the State Commission does not call for any kind of enhancement by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In fact, had the Insurer challenged the order of the State Commission there is a probability of even the consumer complaint being dismissed solely on the ground that fudged stock statements had been relied upon by the complainant. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove the Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.