NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs Bharat Watch Co

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 3rd July, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal (for short the State Commission) by which it has allowed the complaint filed by the present respondent M/s. Bharat Watch Co., and directed the present appellant, M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. who was the opposite party in the complaint to pay to the complainant interest @ 12% per annum from 7th April, 1992 i.e. the date of filing of the complain to 30th October, l9y2 on the amount of Rs. 1,11,300/ -. The opposite party has also been directed to pay Rs. 50,190/ - with interest at the above rate from after 30th October, 1992 till payment as on that date Rs. 61,100/ - was paid to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved the Opposite party has come before this Commission by way of this appeal. The parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the complaint.

THE complainant is engaged in the business of watches, tape recorders, t.Vs. etc. He had obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party covering a risk of Rs. 2,75,000/ -. While the policy was in force, on 12th August, 1991 a theft took place in the shop of the complainant resulting loss of Rs. 1,11,300/ - on account of theft of cash and wrist watches etc. Intimation was sent to the police. A claim was lodged with the Insurance Company was on receiving the claim, immediately, referred the matter to a Surveyor and loss assessor named Shri Prakash Jain. vide his report dated 5th November, 1991 he assessed the loss at Rs. 80.000/ - less average clause of Rs. 18,890/ - and thus the net amount payable was assessed at Rs. 61,110/ -. The said amount was offered to the complainant but he refused to accept the same and filed the complaint claiming Rs. 1,08,675/ - for loss of stolen goods, Rs. 2,625/ - for the loss of cash plus interest and costs. On being noticed the opposite party i.e. the Insurance Company filed its counter contesting the claim and pleaded that the particulars of the stolen property have not been narrated in the complaint. On the receipt of the complainant''s claim the matter was investigated by Shri Prakash Jain, Surveyor who assessed the net loss at Rs. 61,110/ -. But, the complainant was not ready to accept the same. The complainant has not maintained books of account in accordance with the accounting system and has also not maintained the stock register. In the absence of the stock registers the correctness and authenticity of the alleged stolen articles could not be properly verified. Even the vouchers of all the stolen watches had not been furnished to the Insurance Company or the Surveyor. The stock of Titan watches was more in comparison to other wrist watches at the time of loss. Since the stock of wrist watches was pot maintained the Surveyor advised the insured to make an inventory of the remaining stock. The Surveyor had assessed the loss of about 150 watches at Rs. 550/ -average rate and as such the loss arrived at was Rs. 80,000/ -. Less average clause. The Insurance Company asked the insured to submit the statement of sale and purchase of watches other than Titan make watches during the period 16th October, 1990 to 31st March 1991, but he failed to furnish the requisite particulars and hence the claim could not be finally settled. The lapse is attributed to the negligence on the part of the complainant. The complainant has claimed Rs. 1,08,670/ - towards the alleged stolen goods, but he has failed to prove by not maintaining stock registers and proper accounts including sale and purchase account other than the Titan watches. The complainant is also not entitled to recover Rs. 2,625/ - towards the loss of cash.

THE Insurance Company also filed affidavits of Shri Prakash Jain, Surveyor and Shri R.K. Uppal, an officer of the Insurance Company.

DURING the pendency of the complaint a cheque for Rs. 61,110/ - was given to the complainant''s father by the Insurance Company on 30th October, 1992 under the order of the State Commission before the complainant had produced tax assessment orders passed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Raipur. The complainant was found paying income tax and, therefore, the State Commission came to the conclusion that it is not believable that the complainant is not keeping accounts as per the rules. The State Commission also disputed the affidavit of the Surveyor that the complainant was not keeping accounts particularly when he is doing business in sales tax payable goods. The State Commission found that on 31st March, 1992 the opening stock was Rs. 1,75,000/ -. Total purchases between 1.4.1991 and 10.8.1991 amounted to Rs. 10,16,755/ - and total sales between the period amounted to Rs. 9,91,610/ -. Thus on 10.8.1991 the stock of watches was worth Rs. 2,59,968/ -. The theft had taken place on 12th August, 1991. The complainant had filed affidavit disclosing loss of Rs. 1,11,300/ - out of which the loss of cash amounted to Rs. 2,625/ -. The Surveyor''s report was not filed before the State Commission and, therefore, the State Commission could not examine the basis of assessment of loss assessed by the Surveyor. The State Commission could not find any ground to disbelieve the statement of the complainant that goods worth Rs. 1,08,675/ - and cash Rs. 2,625/ - was stolen in the incident. Hence the impugned order was passed by the State Commission.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It was argued on behalf of the complainant -respondent that it is not mandatory to maintain the stock register. Moreover, Shri Uppal and the Surveyor have signed the cash memo/vouchers regarding the sale of the goods. It was also urged that all accounts of the stock including wrist watches, T. Vs., radios, transistors etc. or other similar goods and cash were insured for Rs. 2,50,000/ - while the furniture and fixtures and fittings i.e. F.F.F. was insured for Rs. 25,000/ -. The total amount of theft of watches, T.Vs. and other stock was of Rs. 1,08,675/ - and cash Rs. 2,625/ - and that the remaining items which were left after the theft were worth Rs. 1,42,450/ -. It was stated that the list of remaining items bears the signature of the surveyor, Shri Prakash Jain. The F.F.F. belongs to the year 1968 - 69 and was insured for Rs. 25,000/ - but the Surveyor has wrongly fixed the value of those fixtures at Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Since no damage was caused to the F.F.F., hence the report of the Surveyor wherein a total value of stocks and F.F.F. is jointly shown as Rs. 3,60,000/ - is not correct.

AFTER going through the records and hearing the parties we are of opinion that the submissions of the appellant cannot be accepted merely because the stock register was not maintained. The Surveyor was not entitled to disbelieve the lists of goods as well as of other remaining stock prepared by the complainant. As noticed above, the complainant had produced vouchers and cash memos which were signed by the Surveyor as well as by Shri Uppal. The complainant has supplied the details of the stolen stock of watches to the Surveyor who had signed the same on 16th August, 1991. A photo copy of the same has been produced on record at page 61 of the paper book. Photo copies of some other lists have also been produced. The State Commission has discussed the matter in detail. We do not find any infirmity in their order. For the reasons given above we uphold the findings of the State Commission and dismiss the present appeal but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.