The requirement for a speaking order and the competence of the State Commission to assess loss and grant compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

K.S. Chaudhari, (P.M) - This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 05.03.2009 passed by learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint no. 331/2001 M/s Novex Enterprises v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by which while allowing complaint, opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 10,61,4661- towards loss of the goods and was further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,0001- as compensation for mental agony.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent obtained fire policy for Rs. 1 Crore from 31.01.2000 to 30.01.2001 from opposite party/appellant. It was further submitted that addition premium was also given for covering loss due to flood. On 20.07.2000 there were heavy rains and in spite of best care, rain water entered premises of the complainant and caused loss of Rs. 1061466/-. Opposite party was intimated who appointed Mr. Rajiv Puri as Surveyor who visited the premises of the complainant. Complainant lodged claim with opposite party but opposite party vide letter dated 20.03.2001 closed claim on the basis that complainant failed to furnish relevant documents whereas, complainant had already furnished all the documents. Alleging deficiency on the party of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complainant provided stock register on 01.08.2000 and valued affected stock at Rs. 10,68,161/- which was not in the claim form. It was further submitted that complainant mixed all nature of stocks to show higher loss so surveyor could not conclude actual loss. Surveyor requested complainant to segregate stocks but they were not segregated. In such circumstances, claim was closed and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Ld. State Commission, after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint as mentioned above against which this appeal has been filed.

3. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that Ld. State Commission has not given any reason for assessing loss of Rs. 1061466/- hence appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to Ld. State Commission for deciding it afresh by speaking order. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that as incident is 15 years old, matter may not be remanded back and matter may be disposed off by this Commission.

5. Order of Ld. State Commission runs as under:

"(9) It is not understandable as to why surveyors appointed by the OP-Company did not assess the loss of those goods which got affected in flood. There was sufficient material in the form of documentary evidence produced by the complainant which could have easily been scanned for the purpose of assessing the actual loss. These documents were duly acknowledged by the surveyor vide their letter dated 12.09.2000 and are and under:

(i) Detailed valuation of stock in godown as on 20.07.2002.

(ii) Detailed valuation of damaged goods,

(iii) Balance stock of fresh pieces.

(iv) Trial balance of Novex Enterprises from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2009.

(v) Balance sheet of Novex Enterprises as on 31.03.1999.

(vi) Profit/Loss a/c of 01-04-1998 to 31-03-1999.

(vii) Trial Balance of Novex Enterprises from 01-04-1999 to 31-03-2000.

(viii) Balance sheet of Novex Enterprises as on 31-03-2000.

(ix) Profit/Loss a/c of 01-04-2000 to 31-03-2000.

(x) Sales Tax return 01-01-2000 to 31-03-2000.

(xi) Metrology report

(xii) Change of address as fully shifted godown.

(xiii) Xerox copy of Insurance policy.

(10) The perusal of these documents shows that the complainant has successfully proved the loss to the tune of Rs. 10,61,466/-. The excuses of OP-company and their surveyor that since complainant did not segregate the effected stock from the unaffected stocks, the actual loss could not be assessed was flimsy. In spite of having been provided with all the details as referred above, the OP-company did not impress upon the surve