AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1354 of 2006 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Shagun Pharmaceuticals by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner dealing in medicines got his stock insured through OP No. 2 / Respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1. In the intervening night of 28-29/5/2004, shop got fire and medicines, furniture, stock register, etc. turned into ashes resulting in loss of Rs.5,00,000/-. Complainant submitted claim to OP No. 1 which was repudiated as ''no claim''. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that claim was declared ''no claim'' due to non-cooperative attitude and behavior of the complainant in not providing relevant record, i.e., Accounts book and record pertaining to purchase and sale of medicines. It was further submitted that on receipt of information from complainant, OP appointed surveyor on 1.6.2004 and surveyor inspected premises on the same day in the presence of complainant and asked complainant to produce relevant documents. It was further submitted that as per record supplied by the complainant sales were decreasing every year and stock of dead medicines was accumulating. It was further submitted that complainant has not got tested medicines from Ayurvedic Medical Officer, so, claim was rightly declared as ''no claim'' and prayed for dismissal of complaint. None appeared for OP No. 2 and he was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay insured amount to the complainant. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
None appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex-parte.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission without any cogent reasons committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
Perusal of insurance policy reveals that complainant obtained insurance coverage of Rs.5,00,000/- including furniture, fixtures and fittings and stock in trade. As per claim form, complainant has shown value of furniture to be Rs.50,000/- and after deducting salvage of Rs.5,000/-, he claimed Rs.45,000/-. In survey report nothing has been mentioned about the state of furniture and in such circumstances, learned District Forum not committed any error in allowing complaint at least to the extent of loss caused to furniture. Learned State Commission has not discussed anything about loss caused to furniture whereas, complainant was entitled to get claim of Rs.45,000/- pertaining to damage to furniture due to fire.
As far stock of medicines is concerned, learned State Commission after quoting survey report observed that as complainant did not furnish record to the surveyor with respect to purchase of medicines and as per survey report most of the medicines were expired or samples not for sale, no claim was payable. Perusal of survey report reveals that surveyor prepared inventory of saved medicines. Inspite of our directions, respondent has not placed on record inventory prepared by surveyor and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that stock of medicines which neither expired nor samples were not damaged due to fire. No doubt, no claim is payable towards medicines expired and not for sale, but merely on the basis of not supplying documents, it cannot be presumed that old stock of medicines lying in the shop was either expired or not for sale, particularly, when inventory of saved medicines was not placed on record and at least some compensation is required to be granted.
Perusal of survey report also reveals that in the year 2003-04, complainant purchased medicines of Rs.3,70,786.47 and sold medicines worth Rs.3,61,178/- meaning thereby, his stock exceeded only roughly by Rs.9,000/- in the year 2003-04. In the previous years also his sales were higher than purchases and in such circumstances, it can be inferred that most of the stock lying in his shop would have been purchased prior to the financial year, 2001-02 which may be treated as expired and learned District Forum committed error in allowing full claim, but learned State Commission also committed error in dismissing claim in toto without considering the fact that when complainant was running shop, he must be having some stock of medicines which was neither expired nor sample not for sale.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per statement of OP No. 2 dated 28.2.2004, complainant was having stock of Rs.4,49,199/- and this stock should be presumed to be fit for sale. This argument cannot be accepted and merely on the basis of stock shown by OP No. 2, stock lying in the shop cannot be treated to be worth of Rs.4,,49,199/-. Petitioner in his revision petition has mentioned that value of stock was at least Rs.3,00,000/- on the date of insurance of the said stock, but in the absence of purchase bills, it cannot be presumed so. But, at the same time, in the light of aforesaid discussion, it is established that at least some stock of sample medicines was available in the shop and on this assumption, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner on account of damage to the medicines.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.95,000/- pertaining to loss to medicines as well as furniture and revision petition is to be allowed partly.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and order dated 24.6.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1354 of 2006 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Shagun Pharmaceuticals and order of District Forum dated 7.3.2006 passed in CC No. 156/05 - M/s. Shagun Pharmaceuticals Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. is modified and OP No. 1/Respondent No.1 is directed to pay complainant/petitioner Rs.95,000/- within a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which, complainant will be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from 7.3.2006, the date on which District forum passed judgment till realization. Parties to bear their own costs.