ORDER

This Revision Petition No.363 of 2017 challenges the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) order dated 08.11.2016 which partially allowed FA No. 187/2015 and reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara, Rajasthan (‘the District Forum’) vide order dated 06.01.2015 in CC No. 166/2013.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that a fire incident occurred on 19.01.2013 due to a short circuit which destroyed his stock of cattle feed, machinery, and business records. The incident was promptly reported to police, fire brigade, and insurance company. All necessary documents, including stock statements approved by the bank and duplicate purchase bills for cattle feed worth Rs.3,58,330/-, were submitted to the surveyor. Despite submitting all documents required, the claim was arbitrarily settled for a meagre Rs.36,700/- without proper justification. The assessed stock value was Rs.7,94,000/- as verified by the bank on 07.01.2013, and subsequent purchases made and the total thus was Rs.11,82,330/-.

4. Being aggrieved by the limited compensation, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum and sought payment of Rs.8,93,300/- along with 12% interest, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, and litigation costs.

5. In written version before the District Forum, OP-1 acknowledged verifying stock worth Rs.7,94,000/- on 07.01.2013 but was unaware of subsequent purchases. As the stock & machinery were hypothecated, any claim settlement amount should be credited to the loan account. They denied any liability for the claim as the responsibility lies solely with the insurance company. OP-2 Insurer averred that the stock and other items were not completely destroyed in the fire. The complainant failed to provide proper records like stock registers and account books. They observed policy breaches such as no fire-fighting equipment and inadequate security measures. The claim was settled for Rs.36,700/- as per the surveyor’s report and as per policy terms. They asserted that the claim was inflated and lacked substantiation

6. The learned District Forum, vide order dated 06.01.2015, partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP-2 as under:

“12. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and opposite party No. 2 Insurance company is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakh) additional amount within 2 months of the order along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint before this Forum i.e. 16.07.2013 till payment. Since, what is the position of the loan account of opposite party No. 1 is not known to us, hence before depositing the amount into the loan account the consent of the complainant shall be taken. If the complainant submits any no objection certificate from opposite party No. 1 then it will be paid to him. Rs.2000/- (two thousand) shall be paid to the complainant by opposite party No.2 Insurance Company on account of litigation expenses. This shall also be paid within 2 months.” (Extracted from translated copy)

7. Being aggrieved by the order, OP-2 - Insurer filed an Appeal and the State Commission, vide order dated 08.11.2016 partially allowed the Appeal and reduced the quantum of compensation as under:

“There is no dispute about the fact that these are stock statements submitted to the Punjab National Bank in which declaration has been made by the complainant- respondent himself but stock has never been verified by the bank and from the perusal of these stock statements it cannot be gathered that after inspection the bank has found the stock of particular amount as mentioned in the above documents. Hence, these documents have no evidentiary value to show the stock on a particular date. Furthermore reliance has been placed on bank statement