ASHOKA MOTOR STORE vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum with some modifications.

THE brief facts which lead the complainant to file the complaint before the District Forum are as under. The complainant got his stock of tyres, tubes etc. insured with the opposite party Insurance Company by obtaining three policies, two from M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs each and the third policy from the M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. for Rs. 2 lakhs. Theft took place in the night of 19/20.12.1990 at 7.45 a.m., the factum of theft was intimated to the opposite parties. The total price of the stolen goods was Rs. 3,51,054/- out of which goods worth Rs. 1,60,623/- were recovered by the police. In spite of the complainant submitting all the documents as required by the Insurance Company, the Surveyor who was appointed by the Insurance Company has submitted his report after considerable delay assessed the loss at Rs. 3,51,054/- vide his report dated 6.1.1991. Not feeling satisfied with the report of the 1st Surveror, the Insurance Company appointed second Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 2,23,591/-. In spite of the complainant writing letters on 17.2.1992, 13.7.1992, 14.8.1992 and 17.12.1992, the matter was not settled. In the meantime, police has recovered 30 tyres. The Insurance Company, deducted the value of the 30 tyres from the amount recommended by the second Surveyor and offered Rs. 62,868/- in full and final settlement which was not acceptable to the complainant. This has led the complainant to knock the doors of the District Forum for relief. Upon hearing both the parties the District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,90,431/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. w.e.f. 20.3.1991 till the date of realisation along with a sum of Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. Against the decision the complainant as well as both the Insurance Companies have gone in appeal. The State Commission has decided the three appeals by a common order. The conclusion reached by the State Commission and the reasons given by it as to which Surveyor''s report, i.e. either first Surveyor''s report or the second Surveyor''s report, cannot be faulted and have to accepted. In this regard the State Commission has held as under : "The report of the first Surveryor on the face of it indicates that the value of the stolen tyres was assessed on the statement of complainant who had not produced the relevant account books or stock registers before the Surveryor. It was for these reasons that the Surveyor himself described the report as interim report. The second report is dated August 17, 1992 assessing the loss of the stolen tyres at Rs. 2,23,591/- by the Surveyor, S.S.B. Surveyors and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. A perusal of this report shows that report was prepared in the absence of production of the relevant registers and relying upon the material produced by the complainant, considering stock and sales of the previous years. It has been argued by the Counsel for the opposite party that the basis of this report is arbitrary or unfair, thus, it would not be appropriate to rely upon this report and grant the relief. There is no merit in this contention. The Insurance Companies were expected to at least accept this report and there was no occasion for appointing yet another Surveyor. Since this was not done, apparently, there was deficiency in rendering service entitling the complainant to the grant of the compensation."

In view of what has been stated above, the State Commission has passed the following order : "The appeal of the complainant is allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified. The other two appeals filed by the Insurance Companies are dismissed. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the Insurance Companies in the proportion of 80 : 20 (M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. would pay the amount of Rs. 2,23,591/- with 12% interest thereon w.e.f. August 17, 1992 till realisation. The value of 30 tyres would stand adjusted as on the date of release of Spurdari i.e. 23.5.1996 and thereafter on the remaining amount interest would be calculated @ 12%. The Insurance Company would pay cost of litigation as ordered by the District Forum in the proportion referred to above. There will be no orders as to costs in these appeals."

THE complainant has come in revision before us for enhancement of compensation, interest, etc. Heard Counsels appearing on both sides. We have also perused the impugned order as well as the order of the District Forum. In our view, the view taken by the State Commission is correct. The main controversy is as to which report should be accepted whether it is the 1st Survyor''s report or the second Surveyor''s report. The first Surveyor had described his own report as interim report because his assessment was based on whatever was conveyed by the complainant without production of relevant account books or stock registers. The second report is dated August 17, 1992. Revision Petition disposed of.