AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Shreesha, Presiding Member
Aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2019 in First Appeal No. 1315 of 2015 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short "the State Commission"), the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company") preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara (in short "the District Forum") and dismissed the Appeal.
This is the second round of litigation as initially the Consumer Complaint was decided by the District Forum vide order dated 23.11.2012 and the Insurance Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 11,74,000/-to the Complainant and on Appeals preferred by both the parties before the State Commission, there was a direction by the State Commission to the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 7,74,897/- as the Complainant had signed the discharge vouchers and the matter was remanded back to the District Forum to decide the following issues:
Whether the Complainant is entitled to receive Rs.18,71,442/- more than insured value of 15,00,000/- and whether there is under insurance, if so, its effect?
Whether the Complainant suffered the loss of Rs.7,74,897 or of 18,71,442/- and its basis?
The facts in brief are that the Complainant took a Shop keepers Insurance Policy covering the period from 25.01.2011 to 24.01.2012 for a sum of 15,00,000/-. While so, in the intervening night of= 22.05.2011/23.05.2011, on account of short circuit all the stock of medicines, surgical equipment, furniture and computers and other items were burnt and Insurance Claim was immediately made but despite several visits, it was not settled. Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.03.2012 the Insurance Company assessed the loss at 7,74,897/- without any basis despite the Complainant having furnished to the Insurance Company the stock register, computer hard disk and other documents required by it.
The Insurance Company resisted the Complaint stating that the insured value is Rs.15,00,000/- whereas the claim made by the Complainant exceeds that amount. It was averred that the Complainant never produced the stock register or the records relating to sales and purchase. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 4,12,000/- in the presence of the Complainant and submitted his report on 21.10.2011, thereafter, some documents were submitted to reassess the loss, which were earlier stated to be unavailable. It was also stated that the claim of Rs. 18,71,442/- was based only on assumptions. The amount of Rs.7,74,897/- was found payable after making necessary deduction in the excess clause. Though the said amount was offered to the Complainant, which was never accepted by him.
The District Forum, after the remand of the matter has observed with respect to the first issue that IDV is only Rs. 15,00,000/-, the Complainant is not justified in claiming an amount of Rs.18,71,442/- as the maximum liability of the Insurance Company is only to the extent of 15,00,000/-. With respect to the second issue regarding the extent of loss suffered by the Complainant, the District Forum noted that the Surveyor first assessed the loss at Rs. 4,12,000/- on 21.10.2011 and second time assessed the loss at Rs.7,95,536 on 04.01.2012 and that the Survey Report mentioned about the account details verified by the Charted Accountant according to which the stock of 21,64,955/- was available between 01.04.20111 and 22.05.2011, but no such account was produced at the time of the first Survey. It was observed that though the stocks were verified by the Charted Accountant Tater & Co. on different occasions, the period was for a later time which clarified that the stocks were verified thereafter. The District Forum based on the income tax return, invoices, vouchers and on the documents put forwarded before them has awarded an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-
Aggrieved by that order, the Insurance Company preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Forum regarding the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the Surveyor had given a detailed reasoning in arriving at the assessment of loss of 8,95,536/- and that the auditor could not have given a correct report without verifying the documents and that the District Forum has awarded an amount of 12,00,000/- without any basis or justification. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that this amount of 7,74,897/-was already paid to the Complainant on the direction to the District Forum. Vide order dated 07.09.2016 an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was directed to be deposited before the District Forum while granting conditional stay.
Hence the only point that falls for consideration here is whether the concurrent finding of both the for a below with respect to awarding Rs 12,00,000/- is justified.
It is not in dispute that the sum insured under Shop Keeper Insurance Policy is Rs. 15,00,000/- and that the stock of the insured was hypothecated with Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank. It is also not in dispute that initially the claim was made for an amount of Rs. 8,58,164/- and thereafter not satisfying with the assessment of loss, the insured had filed a fresh claim for Rs. 18,71,472/-.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant vehemently contended that the entire stock statement including medicines stock, surgical stock, medical equipments, furniture and fixtures worth Rs. 18,71,442/-together with Bills of Purchase and Sales certified by the Charted Accountant was submitted to the Insurance Company. He further submitted that the documents related to the shop like drug inspection report, estimated balance sheet and purchase bills from various suppliers were submitted to the office of the Surveyor on 15.07.2011, but the same was not considered by the Insurance Company. A brief perusal of the stock statement as on the date of loss i.e. 22.05.2011 shows that the closing stock in the year ending 31.03.20111 amounted to Rs. 21,64,955/-, whereas the Surveyor had assessed the stock for only Rs. 8,95,536/-. The trading accounts for the year 31.03.2011 to 22.05.2011, which form part of the record, confirm the same. For better understanding of the case, the claim bill is reproduced as hereunder:
CLAIM BILL
1.
1 Loss of stocks in the shop
18,02,182.00
2.
Loss of Furniture, fixtures and Electrical Installations.
64,761.00
3.
Fire Fighting Expenes
00
4.
4 Removal of Debris (Labour charges)
600.00
5.
Shifting of the Debris and rent paid for the premises
1,200.00
6.
Expenses during the disposal of the debris (freight of loading Tempo and JCB Charges for 2 hours)
1,900.00
Total
18,71,442.
Charted Accountant- K.C. Tater & Associates have surveyed the closing stock as on 31.03.2011 to be 24,32,108/- the balance sheet of the profit and loss account duly certified by the Charted Accountant confirms the same. The trading account from 01.04.2011 to 22.05.2011 reads as follows:
TRADING ACCOUNT FROM 01.04.2011 TO 22.05.2011
PARTICULARS
AMOUNT
PARTICULARS
AMOUNT
TO OPENING STOCK
24,32,108.00
BY SALSES
12,51,344.00
TO PURCHASE
8,21,517.00
TO GROSS PROFIT C/D
1,62,674.00
BY CLOSING STOCK
21,64,955.00
34,16,299.00
34,16,299.00
We concur with the finding of the State Commission that the Surveyor based on the statement of the Charted Accountant and keeping in view the past years average has opined that a stock of 22,33,415/- was there but some stocks were directly sent to the Hospitals. As per the Survey Report generally the stock for an amount of 20,00,000/- was being kept and Purchase Bill for an amount of 8,58,000/- was furnished and therefore definitely there would be some additional previous stock. Keeping in view the aforentoed stock statements duly certified by the Charted Accountant, we are of the considered view that the amount awarded by concurrent finding of both the fora below is reasonable and therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the fora below to exercise our limited Revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2 (2010) CPJ 19 (SC), this Revision Petition fails and dismissed accordingly. However, no order as to costs.
Needless to add, the decretal amount shall stand adjusted from the amount deposited before the District Forum. Balance, if any, shall be withdrawn by the Revision Petitioner.