AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant in RP No.3402 of 2016 namely M/s. Sonovision Enterprises obtained an insurance policy from the petitioner company in respect of the goods kept in the showroom and the godown in first floor of property known as Sonovision Building, Eluru Road in Vijayawada. The aforesaid complainant also had its godown on the second and third floor of the aforesaid building. The showrooms and godowns are stated to be the joint showroom and godown of Sonovision Enterprises, another firm namely Vijaya Enterprises, complainant in RP No. 3405 of 2016 and Sonovision Electronics, complainant in RP No.3406 of 2016. In fact, all the aforesaid business entities are owned by the same person namely Potluri Bhaskara Murthy, meaning thereby that the complainant / respondent in all the aforesaid matters is one or and the same person, Sonovision Enterprises, Sonovision Electronics and Vijaya Enterprises, being the different trade names adopted by him. In an incident of fire which took place on 25.4.2002 the stock kept in the showroom on the ground and first floor was damaged / destroyed. A surveyor appointed by the insurer inspected the premises in question on 26.4.2002. Though, a claim of Rs.23,17,400/- was submitted in the name of Sonovision Enterprises, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.5,73,699/-. As against the claim of Rs.2,12,920/- in the name of Vijaya Enterprises, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,10,160/-. The claim in the name of Sonovision Electronics was preferred for a sum of Rs.10,29,050/- but the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.3,81,956/-. The payment in terms of the assessment made by the surveyor was made/deposited by the insurer to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the said payment, the complainant filed three separate consumer complaints, seeking payment of the entire amount claimed by him.
The complaint was resisted by the insurer. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the insurer preferred three separate appeals before the concerned State Commission, challenging the order passed by the District Forum. Vide impugned order dated 27.7.2016, the State Commission while confirming payment of the principal amount awarded to the complainant, reduced the period of interest making it payable from 01.5.2003 instead of 05.01.2013. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the insurer is before this Commission by way of these three separate revision petitions.
The first plea taken by the insurer is that the complainant had shifted goods worth Rs.3.00 lacs of Vijaya Enterprises, goods worth Rs.30.00 lacs of Sonovision Enterprises and goods worth Rs.5.00 lacs of Sonovision Enterprises from the first floor of the building housing the joint showroom of the aforesaid three business entities owned by the same person. The case of the complainant in this regard is that the goods kept in the godown on the second and third floor and not the goods kept in the showroom on the ground and first floor of the building were shifted by him. I have perused the letter dated 08.4.2002 whereby the complainant intimated the shifting of the goods. The insurer issued endorsements on receipt of the aforesaid letter form the insured. The District Forum as well as the State Commission returned a finding that the goods were shifted from the godown on the second and third floor and not from the showroom on the ground and first floor of the building. The aforesaid finding is seriously disputed by the insurer relying upon the letters dated 08.4.2002. In the aforesaid letters dated 08.4.2002, the words ''first floor'' have been written in the copy filed by the insurer whereas there are no such words in the copies of the letters filed by the complainant. The insurer was therefore asked, during the course of hearing, to file the original letters received by it from the complainants in this regard. Neither the original letters have been produced nor any explanation has been given for not producing the original letters, despite direction of this Commission for personal appearance of the concerned Divisional Manager, along with the relevant file. In the absence of an explanation for not filing the original letters, an adverse inference can be drawn against the insurer that had the original letters been filed, the same would not have supported the case set up by it. Moreover, in the endorsement alleged to be issued by the insurer on receipt of the aforesaid letters, the words ''first floor'' have been added by hand though the said endorsement is otherwise a computer generated document bearing details, including the address of the insured building. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the words ''first floor'' were not fed in the computer before generating the aforesaid endorsement if the letters sent by the complainant contained the words ''first floor''. This is yet another circumstance which created serious doubt on the case set up by the insurer in this regard. Since the endorsement had a hand written addition of the words ''first floor'' the insurer was asked to produce the acknowledgement taken from the insured while delivering the said endorsement letter to him. The insured stated on oath that the practice was not to obtain any such acknowledgement. However, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why such an acknowledgement was not being taken from the insured while delivering the endorsement letter to him. In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the view taken and the finding returned by the fora below in this regard.
A perusal of the report of the surveyor would show that while assessing the loss of Sonovision Enterprises, he made deductions of Rs.9,22,474/- towards value of the sound stocks. The details of the sound stocks were given in the Annexure to his report. The learned counsel for the complainant assailed the report of the surveyor on the ground that the sound stock shown by the surveyor includes Videocon televisions whereas Sonovision Enterprises was not dealing in Videocon televisions. It was also stated so in the consumer complaint filed before the District Forum. It was alleged in the complaint filed by Sonovision Enterprises that the Sonovision Electronics was carrying on business of Philips television, Videocon televisions and refrigerators (except Videocon brand air coolers etc.), meaning thereby that Videocon televisions were being sold by Sonovision Electronics and not by Sonovision Enterprises. In my opinion, there could have been no reason for the surveyor to prepare a false report showing sound stock comprising a large number of Videocon televisions, and therefore, his report recommending deductions of the value of the sound stocks ought to have been accepted by the fora below. Moreover, the survey report in respect of the claim of Sonovision Electronics does not show the stock of Videocon televisions in the physical inventory of the sound stock after the incident of the fire. Therefore, even if the value of the Videocon television shown in the inventory of Sonovision Enterprises is deducted that would really make no difference since the said stock would then have to be added in the inventory of the sound stock in the name of the Sonovision Electronics, both the entities being owned by one and the same person.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that while the view taken by the fora below with respect to the shifting of the stock in terms of the letter dated 08.4.2002 does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the value of the sound stock as assessed by the surveyor needs to be deducted while quantifying the amount payable to the complainant.
In RP No. 3402 of 2016, the balance amount payable to the complainant after deduction of Rs.9,22,474/- towards value of the sound stock comes to Rs. 8,21,874/- (Rs.17,44,348 - Rs.9,22,474/-). The insurer is liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant, along with the interest awarded by the State Commission. It would be pertinent to note here that the complainant has not challenged the order of the State Commission to the extent the period for which interest is payable was reduced by the said Commission. In RP No. 3406 of 2016, the issue of the deduction of the value of the sound stock is not involved and therefore the balance gross amount payable to the complainant comes to Rs. 9,68,114/-. Since a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- is stated to have already been paid / deposited by the insurer, the complainant would be entitled to the balance amount, along with cost and interest awarded by the State Commission.
In RP No. 3405 of 2016, no issue of the deduction of the value of the sound stock is involved. The insurer is therefore, liable to pay the balance amount after deducting the sum of Rs.1,10,000/- stated to have been paid / deposited by it, from the amount of Rs.2,12,920/- awarded by the State Commission, along with the interest and compensation awarded by the said Commission.
The revision petitions stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.