Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member, Anup K Thakur, Member
Phool Say Kushwala —Petitioner
versus
Oriental Insurance Company & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2724 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 31/07/2015 in Appeal No. 794/2014 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 24.8.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant must preserve necessary materials for correct assessment of damage.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage caused to shop due to fire—Complaint allowed by Fora below—Petitioner-complainant was remiss in removing salvage and stating thereafter that same had been thrown away—It was his duty and obligation to keep the same for inspection during survey—Petitioner-complainant informed Surveyor that he had not maintained books of account, stock register, cash book, ledger during account balance sheet and sales tax record—State Commission has dealt at length facts of case and gave a detailed order—Order of State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity—Revision petition dismissed.
Held: We have carefully gone through the record. The State Commission has dealt at length the facts of the case and gave a detailed order. A careful reading of the survey report indicates that the petitioner-complainant was remiss in removing the salvage and stating thereafter that the same had been thrown away. It was his duty and obligation to keep the same for inspection during survey. It is also an admitted fact that as mentioned in the survey report, the petitioner-complainant informed the surveyor that he had not maintained books of account, stock register, cash book, ledger during account balance sheet and sales tax record. That he only maintained purchase bills and sales bills and that too were destroyed in the fire. He could not explain to the surveyor on what basis the petitioner had pegged his loss at Rs.7,47,000/-. It is also not known that in the absence of the records mentioned above, on what basis, the bank had prepared the statement of stock in godown and compound. Even assuming, it was on the basis of purchase and sales bills, the position given is as on 01.03.2008. The petitioner cannot hold that the position would remain the same and unchanged as on 23.02.2008 i.e. the date of fire.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013(3) CPR 14 (SC) ; 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:
“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”
12. Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown us in the impugned orders to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of the Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Hence, we dismiss the revision petition and we uphold the order of the State Commission dated 31.07.2015 in F.A. No.794/2014. (Paras 10 to 12)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—Revision Petition No.2724 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (short, “State Commission”) in F.A. No.794/2014.
2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner-complainant are that he is the owner of Farmers Consultation Center situated in Village Parri through Farmer Consultation Center. He runs a business of selling seeds, fertilizer and medicines and earns a living for himself. The above mentioned consultation center was insured with the respondent no.1/OP No.1 under policy no.2008/1462 for the period from 06.08.2007 to 05.08.2008. The petitioner on 23.03.2008 had shut down his shop at 9:00 PM and gone when at midnight 1:00 AM his shop neighbor Sh. Ravishankar Rajwade and Arjun Kushwaha shouted and woke him up and informed about the fire in his shop. He then went to the shop and after opening the lock was able to put out the fire with the help of villagers. With the above stated fire incident all the papers and stock in the shop were also burnt and destroyed. The complaint regarding the fire was given verbally to the Surajpur police station on 23.03.2008 where fire accident was registered vide number 05/2008. The incident of fire was intimated to the insurance/OP No.1 by the petitioner on 24.03.2008. The claim submitted by the petitioner was registered vide number 48/2008/1462 and surveyor Sh. Pawan Aggarwal and Sh. Gambhir were appointed to assess the damage caused due to the fire.
3. The petitioner had taken a loan from Central Bank of India, Mahgaon Branch /O.P. No.2 to open the consultation centre and as security the stock kept in the shop was mortgaged and physically verified by the bank. On the demand of O.P. No.1-insurance company copy of Daily Report, prepared by Central Bank-O.P. No.2 complete details of the damage along with a copy of stock list dated 01.03.2008 was submitted to O.P. No.1. But even after 2 years the relief amount was not given and also no information was given to him. During the incident there was stock of medicines, seeds and fertilizer worth Rs. 7,47,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand only) that got destroyed. When for 2 years the damage relief amount was not given appellant on 08.03.2010 submitted miscellaneous information to which the insurance company replied on 12/03/2010 offering to settle the damage by giving an amount of Rs.46,254/-. A copy of surveyor report was requested by the petitioner but was not provided to him. The insurance company committed deficiency in service by not providing the damage relief amount of Rs.7,47,000/-. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja-Ambikapur (short, “District Forum”) for the claim amount with 18% annual interest from the O.P. no.1.
4. Before the District Forum, the OP no.1 denied all the allegations in the complaint except the fact that the M/s. Farmers Consultation Centre was insured with it for the period from 06.08.2007 to 05.08.2008. According to the above insurance policy, medicines were not under risks covered. Immediately after receiving the intimation of the incident, surveyor Sh. P.K. Aggarwal was sent to assess the damage and to determine the actual damage and the surveyor Sh. V.S. Gambhir had done the survey. Inspection of the claim was done by Sh. Rakesh Tiwari. Damage assessed after the final survey was Rs.46,474 (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seven Four only). As per the conditions of the insurance policy after doing the necessary deductions the final amount of the damage was set as Rs.46,254/- information of which had already been given to the petitioner but the petitioner did not return the discharge voucher back to the insurance company. In this situation, the claim could not be paid to the petitioner, for which the OP No.1 is not at fault. As per the survey report the declaration by the
