MAHENDER KUMAR vs Branch Manager

IN the complaint filed by Sri Mahendra Kumar against Branch Manager, Oriental INsurance Co., the District Consumer Forum, Saharsa, examined the claim under the existing insurance policy for settlement of the loss resulting from a theft, which took place on 30.3.2001. A police case was also filed against unknown persons. The insurance company did not settle his claim and hence the consumer complaint before the District Forum. The insurance company had appointed a Surveyor, who confirmed that this was a case of forcible entry by cutting the back door. He recommended Rs.49,269/- as against the estimated loss of Rs.6,34,090/- by the complainant.

THE District Forum, however determined the loss suffered by the complainant Rs.4,48,714/- and decided that the Insurance Co./OP should settle the claim at Rs.250,000/- and in addition, pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation. In appeal against this order, the State Commission did not agree with the findings and directions of the District Forum and limited the claim to Rs.49,269/- only, as per the recommendation of the surveyor. The Commission also allowed interest of 12% from the date the claim was made with OP and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.

Aggrieved by this reduction in award, the Complainant is now before this Commission in a Revision Petition. We have perused the records and heard the two counsels. The case of the Revision petitioner/Complainant is that the surveyor''s report does not correctly reflect the stock position. The value of stock has been under-computed by the Surveyor and is not in line with the stock statements as furnished from time to time to the Complainant''s bank. The revision petition has mentioned monthly stock position on nine occasions in a period of about 7 to 8 months. The value of the stocks is found to have ranged from a low of Rs.2,59,900/- on 18.7.2000 to a high of R.632,700/- on 29.11.2000. One day before the theft i.e. on 30.3.2001, value of the stocks was shown to be Rs.5,39,763/-.

THE State Commission in the impugned order has observed that the Insurance Co. had appointed two surveyors. THE second had given a lower assessment of the loss, which was accepted by the State Commission. THE Commission has noted that the District Forum has given no reasons for not accepting this recommendation of the surveyor. It is mentioned in both reports of surveyors that the Complainant/Revision Petitioner did not produce any books like the cash book, ledger book, purchase memos etc. in support of his claim. The only documents produced were the monthly stock statements submitted to the Bank. Survey reports have computed his monthly sale purchase transactions at about Rs.65,000/- to 70,000/-. It is based on the written statement of the insured himself that his daily sales were Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- which he has questioned in the proceedings before the consumer fora. The Final Survey Report however, also mentions that between 16.1.2001 and 29.3.2001 the Complainant has credited Rs.1,93,000/- to the bank which gives daily turnover of Rs.2643.83 p. Applying these to an assumption that the shop should have maintained an inventory of two months, the surveyor has fixed the value of stolen stocks at Rs.65,691/-.

AS already noted, the above calculations have to be seen in the backdrop of non-production of any records of purchase of stocks, frequency of purchase and of daily transactions of sale. It is pertinent to note that when complainant was asked to produce books and records he claimed before the Surveyor that the bag containing his records was also stolen. This important fact was not even mentioned in FIR. Thus the complainant has intentionally withheld the record of stock. We are therefore, of the view that the State Commission was right in accepting the above conclusion from the report of the surveyor. However, we do not find any justification for the deduction of 25% from the assessment of loss, recommended by the Surveyor. The conduct of the Insurance Co. itself has been less than professionally correct. It first made a feeble attempt to deny the fact of theft despite the report of the Surveyor and then left the claim undecided on the plea that criminal proceedings were pending in the case. Therefore, it can have no justification to make this deduction. The State Commission too has given no reasons for accepting this deduction.