NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs RAMESH CHANDRA SEMWAL

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.10.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Chamoli in Complaint Case No. 63 of 1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant owned a shop of electronics goods in Upper Market. It was under the name and style of Pankaj Electronics. This shop was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in January, 1994. THEreafter a further insurance of Rs. 50,000/- was got done as the goods kept in the shop were more than of the value Rs. 30,000/-. THE premium of both these policies was paid. It is futher alleged that in the night of 22/23.4.1994 the complainant''s shop caught fire and the entire goods alongwith the accounts books were destroyed in the fire. An F.I.R. of this case was lodged with the police station and the information of the same was also sent to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed one Sri Sushil Kumar Singh as Surveyor, who inspected the shop and submitted his report to the Insurance Company on 1.5.1994.

According to the complainant, at the time of fire goods worth about Rs. 1,00,000/- were kept in the shop. For final inspection Sri Rajeev Sharma, Surveyor was again sent. He inspected the shop and said that he required Rs. 2,000/- for filling petrol in his vehicle. The complainant paid this amount. When the complainant met the Surveyor for compensation, he again asked for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- so that he may get the full amount due. When for a long time, the report was not submitted by the Surveyor, he went to Rishikesh and met Sri Rajeev Sharma who again demanded Rs. 15,000/- highlighting that he will not get anything from this amount and the share from this amount is to be paid to the higher Authorities also. The complainant requested several times to the Insurance Company for payment of the amount but nothing was done and he was directed to meet Sri Rajiv Sharma. When the amount was not released by the Insurance Company, a registered notice dated 17.2.1995 was sent to the Insurance Company.

THE complainant has prayed for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- as loss caused on account of the fire, Rs. 2,000/- paid to Sri Rajeev Sharma, Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental tension, Rs. 50,000/- on account of non operation of business. THE total amount comes to Rs. 1,52,000/-. He also prayed for the interest at the rate of 18% per annum alongwith the cost. In the written version the opposite party has admitted that there was a fire in the shop of the complainant for which an inspection was made. According to the report of the Surveyor only Rs. 15,850/- is due for payment. The complainant was offered this amount but he refused to receive the same. The opposite party No. 3 who is the State Bank of India has stated that there was an insurance of Rs. 30,000/-. The State Bank of India has given the credit facilities to the complainant on hypothecation of the goods. The State Bank of India reserved the right to recover the amount due against the complainant.

THE parties led evidence in support of the respective case. THE learned District Consumer Forum, after considering the case of the parties decreed the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith 12% per annum interest and cost of Rs. 2,000/- which has to be paid within three months. Aggrieved against this order the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary point has been raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the appeal is barred by limitation. According to the learned Counsel the judgment was delivered on 28.10.1996 by the District Consumer Forum and on the same day the copy was applied for and obtained. According to the learned Counsel, there is a delay in filing the appeal but no application for condonation of delay has been filed. This argument is based on the basis of questionnaire the copy of which has been filed by the opposite party. The questionnaire dated 18.2.1997 goes to show that the New India Insurance Company had applied for copy of the judgment on 28.10.1996 and the same was delivered on 28.10.1996. This questionnaire is dated 18.2.1997 filed by the complainant but the opposite party has also filed a copy of the questionnaire which goes to show that the copy was applied for on 28.10.1996 but the same was received on 28.11.1996. The appeal has been filed on 27.12.1996. In the grounds of appeal, it has been written that the copy of judgment was received on 28.11.1996. Thus there are two counter version about the receipt of the copy of judgment and order of the learned District Forum. Thus in view of these evidence it will be presumed that the certified copy of the judgment was received on 28.11.1996, therefore, the appeal is treated to be in time.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that according to the report of the Surveyor the loss was caused only for Rs. 15,000/- and the assessment of damages by the District Forum is wrong. At the outset, it may be said that no copy of survey report has been filed by the appellant. THE main details of this survey report have been reproduced by the District Forum in its judgment and we will be guided by the facts given in it.

THE existence of fire and destruction of goods in the complainant''s shop is not disputed. THE only question is whether the entire stock for which the insurance was done for Rs. 80,000/- was available or not. THE learned District Forum has mentioned on the basis of stock position which has been mentioned by the Surveyor in his report. This stock position is from July/August, 1993 to April, 1994. In the months of July to October/November, the stock position was varying between Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 38,000/-. THEreafter in January, 1994 to April, 1994 the position of stock improves and it was about Rs. 90,000/-. THE contention of the complainant is that the goods worth Rs. 1,00,000/- were kept in the shop when it caught fire. When the Surveyor had already pointed out the stock of about Rs. 90,000/- then how he recommended the payment of Rs. 15,850/- only. As the copy of survey report has not been filed by the appellant, therefore, we are not in a position to say as to what was the reason for which the Surveyor had only recommended for payment of Rs. 15,850/-. As those facts are not available on record, we have to go by stock register which shows the stock of the complainant on the day of fire. No other evidence has been put forward by the opposite party to show that the loss occurred to the complainant was only upto the extent recommended by the Surveyor. A number of things which were found in damaged condition have been mentioned in the judgment. Thus the facts mentioned in the judgment by the learned District Forum cannot be said to be incorrect. THE learned District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the entire amount for which the shop was insured should be awarded to the complainant. THE complainant has been awarded interest at the rate of 12% which cannot be said to be on the higher side. THE cost of Rs. 2,000/- can also be said to be reasonable. Thus, we find that there is no force in the appeal and the learned District Forum in its judgment has in detail considered every aspects of the case and decreed the claim of the complainant. THE result is the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order THE appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. THE judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed with costs.