IMPORTANT POINT
Documentary evidence will always get preponderance over oral evidence.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—The entire case swirls around the report of the Surveyor. To confound his report, solid and incontrovertible evidence is required, unfounded suspicions must not lead the fora astray.

2. The complainant, Shri Manoj Kumar, is having electricity shop in the name and style of M/s Mandal Ready Made Store situated at Kesari Market, Munhar. He obtained insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company Co. Ltd. A fire broke out due to short circuit of electricity, on 27.03.2008. Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha was deputed as a Surveyor. The Surveyor assessed the value for the net loss on account of stock and trade to the tune of Rs.49,495/- and Rs.50,000/- on account of furniture and fixture, fitting and after deduction of the Excess policy for Rs.10,000/- came to the final liability of Rs.89,405/-.

3. The stock register and sale register were burnt in the fire. The assessment of loss was calculated on the basis of purchase and sale shown in VAT returns of three financial years. It was mentioned that the complainant had made an exaggerated claim and he had produced concocted money bills and vouchers. The claim was found to be fraudulent under condition No. 7 of the Shop Keeper Insurance Policy. The claim of the claimant was repudiated on 30.1.2009. The present case was contested by the petitioner/insurance company. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank was also arrayed as one of the opposite parties. In our opinion, Syndicate Bank is not necessary party in this case. Syndicate Bank is hereby discharged.

4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.7,90,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Punitive damages in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh were awarded. Litigation costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- were also awarded in favour of the complainant.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the insurance company filed first appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the following conclusion:

“11. So in view of the above policy of the complainant/ respondent No. 1, it appears that there is error in the amount, calculated by the District Forum and is need to be corrected. Since the cash in Transit for Rs.50,000/- is not applicable in this case, is not payable to the respondent/complainant.

12. Accordingly, after correction in the amount towards total loss for the stock in the impugned order, the appellant insurance Co. is liable to pay Rs.6,75,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.7,40,000/- to the complainant on account of the actual loss and damage, instead of Rs.8,90,000.

13. We are also of the view that the amount awarded as punitive damages for Rs. 1 lac and rate of interest as 12% p.a. in the impugned order, appears excessive and hence it is reduced to Rs.50,000/- and interest rate 9% respectively. With the extent of above mentioned correction/modification in the impugned order dt. 13-09-12, rest of the direction made in the order of the District Forum is justified and stand affirmed.

6. Aggrieved by this order, the insurance company filed this revision petition before this Commission. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has supported the judgments given by both the fora below. He contended that the Surveyor is not a reliable person, complaints were lodged against him and the State Commission also mentioned that the integrity and dispassionate of the Surveyor was one of the reasons for allowing the complaint. The State

Commission in para 8 of the impugned order mentioned as under:

“…… In view of submission the survey report after long gap of time, especially when the complainant made repeated complaint against the integrity and dispassionateness of the surveyor and also when there was no justified reason on the part of the sur