ANUP K. THAKUR

1.      Under challenge in this Revision Petition No. 3826 of 2013 is the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (‘State Commission’, hereafter) in FA/52/2012.  Vide this order, the State Commission had allowed the appeal in part and modified the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri (‘District Forum’, hereafter).  The District Forum, in C.C. No.2011/26, had allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/OP to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakh with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till realization towards indemnifying her loss in trade, with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the night of 24-25.1.2010, a fire occurred in the business premises of the insured, gutting entire stock, all documents, almirah, racks and shelves of Om Auto Centre.  This resulted, per complaint, in the complete loss of stock valued at Rs.15,10,600/-.  Police, fire station as well as OP-insurance company (OP hereafter) were informed. The gutted business had commenced in the year 2004 with financial assistance from State Bank of India, Barobisa Branch, by way of cash credit/ hypothecation loan, subject to terms and conditions which included submission of periodical stock statements.  Cash credit limit enjoyed by the concern was upto Rs.15 Lakh.  Per the complaint, the value of stock of motor spare parts and accessories at the time of fire was Rs.18,60,500/-. The OP appointed surveyor visited the spot and asked the petitioner/complainant (complainant hereafter) to prepare a damage list.  This was done by her.  It was however her case that all the documents such as cash book, ledger, voucher etc. had been completely destroyed;  however, despite knowing this, OP had insisted on these documents and was not settling her claim.  She therefore filed a consumer complaint which was decided in her favour by the District Forum as noted earlier.  On appeal, the State Commission allowed the same in part and directed the OP to pay Rs.5,32,321.20 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till realization towards indemnification of the complainant’s loss of stock in trade, with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.  This revision challenges the State Commission’s order reducing the claim from Rs.15 lakh to Rs.5,32,321.20.

3.      The matter was heard on 26.2.2020. Counsels had agreed that final order may be passed on the basis of written submissions of the parties on record.

4.      After hearing the learned counsels and considering carefully the record including the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the State Commission does not warrant any interference at the revisionary stage.

5.      The only point of dispute in this revision petition is the amount of claim payable to the complainant.  The State Commission has relied upon the assessment of the surveyor, on the ground that the surveyor’s report has to be given due importance and that when the surveyor’s report was on record, it was wrong for the District Forum to have not considered this important document.  The counter argument of the