IMPORTANT POINT
Insured should be entitled to get purchase price.

This revision petition has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. against order dated 11.09.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP. (in short ‘the State Commission’)

2. The facts of the present case in short are that the complainant was running a Mobile shop in the name and style of Punjabi Mobile Gallery, Near Jagat Cinema at Begham Pul, Meerut, wherein the complainant is doing his business for the sale and repairs of mobiles for the last many years. The said shop was insured with respondent insurance company vide policy No.460700/48/05/9800000330. On the night of 26.10.2005 the lock of the shop was broken open by some unknown culprits and 75-80 mobiles of different companies were stolen due to which the complainant suffered the loss of Rs.5,00,000/-. The matter was reported to police station, Sadfar Bazar, Meerut on 27.10.2005 morning and the office of the respondent was also informed on the same day. After the investigation, the police filed the final report which was accepted by the court on 29.07.2007. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor, who found that the incident was correct, but the Insurance Company did not decide the claim. The claim was ultimately repudiated on 15.11.2007 on the basis that the complainant did not submit the purchase bills to the surveyor. Then, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which decided the case on 18.06.2010 and ordered as follows:-

“The complaint of the complainant is allowed against the respondent insurance company. The repudiation letter dated15.11.2007 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed being illegal. The respondent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- towards the cost of stolen mobile sets along with interest @ 12% per annum from three months after the date of incident till realization within a period of one month from the date of this order. The respondent will also pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- for compensation towards the mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation. The respondent will comply with this order within the stipulated period, failing which this Forum will be free to take action u/s 25/27 C.P. Act, 1986 against the respondent.”

3. Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the petitioner, Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide its order dated.11.09.2013 decided the case as under:-

“By allowing partly the present appeal the judgment dated 18.06.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut is modified to the extent that the cost of the mobile sets of Rs.3,63,770/- instead of Rs.5,00,000/- will be payable to the complainant. Upon the said amount, the interest and the other compensation and the cost of litigation will remain the same as allowed by the District Forum.”

4. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the petitioner, Insurance Company has filed this revision petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents thoroughly.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the surveyor’s report dated 18.09.2006 is quite exhaustive and State Commission should have accepted this report while awarding the cost of mobiles lost and compensation. In this case, it is true that initially the complainant has lodged an FIR for theft of 72 Mobile phones. However, when police asked him to provide the list of Mobiles with identification numbers, he submitted this list only for 43 Mobile phones. Also in the claim form, only 43 Mobiles have been listed for Rs.3,50,000/-. The District Forum, without going into any details has just allowed the amount demanded by the complainant. The State Commission has considered the surveyor’s report, but in a wrongful manner. The State Commission has just taken from the surveyor’s report the value of 72 Mobiles to be Rs.3,63,770/- and the same has been