Concurrent findings of fact from lower fora are binding unless proven perverse or erroneous, restraining re-assessment in revision petitions.

1. Mr. Subhash Chandra, Member - This revision petition assails the order dated 23.9.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 633 of 2007 by which the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gaya (in short, the 'District Forum') dated 18.10.2007 in consumer complaint number 117 of 2006 was upheld. The impugned order of the District Forum has directed the revision petitioner / Insurance Company to pay Rs.14,74,000 along with interest at 8% per annum from 15.9.2006 till realization along with Rs.2,000 by way of compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant / respondent M/s Sunil Pharma who is a wholesale stockist of medicines, had obtained a shop insurance policy for Fire and Burglary for an amount of Rs.16,00,000 for the stock of medicines and Rs.1,00,000 towards furniture in the shop. The policy was valid from 13.2.2006 to 12.2.2007. He had also obtained a credit loan facility of Rs.15,00,000 from the State Bank of India, Purani Godown, Gaya and hypothecated the entire stock in the name of the bank for which a monthly statement of stock was submitted for verification. During the validity of this policy a fire broke out in the shop of the respondent on the night of 14-15.3.2006. The fire brigade it was called and the fire was put out. The local police was also informed. On 16.03.2006 the petitioner was informed of the fire accident and a Surveyor, Mr. Ajay Kumar was appointed to inspect the loss due to the fire. An inspection was carried out on 17.3.2006 and on 22.3.2006 and a list of the damaged medicines was prepared as all records had been burnt. The price of the medicines was provided by the insured as Rs.12,69,000 which according to the petitioner was exaggerated. The Surveyor addressed the Drug Inspector, Gaya to ascertain whether the medicines could be used after the fire. Since the respondent had hypothecated the stocks to the State Bank of India, Gaya the surveyor informed the bank that the documents had not been provided to it. The surveyor submitted his Final Report dated 17.7.2006 which stated that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had invested Rs.25,00,000 in the shop. It was also stated that the credit loan was only for Rs.10,50,000 and that no tax returns or stock statement had been had been submitted to enable verification of the value of stocks. In the absence of the relevant books of account the surveyor assessed the damaged medicines at Rs.1,75,000 and furniture at Rs.30,756. The total loss was assessed at Rs.3,35,815 after deduction of excess. The respondent, however, returned the loss voucher under protest.

3. Thereafter the respondent filed CC No. 117 of 2006 before the District Forum, Gaya claiming Rs.17,00,000 for the loss suffered by him along with Rs.2,00,000 towards compensation. On contest, the District Forum vide its order dated 8.10.2007 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.14,74,000 along with interest at 8% from 15.9.2006 till the date of realization along with Rs.2,000 as compensation. In appeal, the State Commission held that there was no denying that the respondent was running a wholesale medicine business which could not be done with a paltry stock of Rs.1,50,000. It was held that the order the order of the District Forum was based on due consideration of facts and circumstances and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. The present revision petition has been filed against this order on the grounds that the lower Fora did not appreciate fact that the surveyor had