RAHUL FURNITURE HOUSE vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD AND ORS

K. S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

[1] This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission ) in Appeal No. 1352/2009 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rahul Furniture by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner obtained standard fire policy from OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of one year from 24.2.2008 to 23.3.2009. On 2.11.2008, in mid-night due to fire, generator and goods were damaged and there was loss of Rs.5,03,000/-. Intimation was given to OP and surveyor assessed loss of Rs.72,087/- against whom allegations were made for demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/-, therefore request for appointment of second surveyor was made, but surveyor was not appointed. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted issuance of policy and submitted that report of incident was received from the bank on 5.11.2008. Surveyor demanded stock statement, balance sheet and purchase vouchers, but they were not supplied and surveyor assessed loss of Rs.72,087/-. Demand of bribe was denied. It was further submitted that complainant has not submitted his bank statement and stock statement and purchase bills and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.3,84,580/- towards damage to stock and Rs.20,000/- towards damage to the generator with 10% pa. interest and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed vide impugned order and amount was reduced from Rs.4,04,580/- to Rs.1,94,580/- against which, this revision petition has been filed.

[3] Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

[4] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of loss by statement of stock verified by Bank, learned State Commission has committed error in reducing compensation; 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.

[5] Perusal of record reveals that complainant has not produced any purchase bills pertaining to his stock. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards stock statement attested by Bank official. Perusal of these statements reveals that they were prepared by complainant and they have only been attested by the Manager of Hanumangarh Cooperative Bank Ltd. These statements have not been verified by Bank official and only on the basis of attestation; it cannot be believed that complainant was possessing stock of furniture as shown in these statements.

[6] Learned State Commission also observed that statement of stock from 1.10.2008 to 31.10.2008 was attested on 1.10.2008, which cannot be believed because it could have been attested only on or after 31.10.2008. Learned State Commission also observed that bills submitted by complainant for purchase of plywood from Narula Plywood Co. were denied by Narula Plywood and in such circumstances rightly reduced compensation by Rs.2,15,000/-.

[7] I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

[8] Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.