NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SUNIL PHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition assails the order dtd. 23/9/2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 633 of 2007 by which the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gaya (in short, the 'District Forum') dtd. 18/10/2007 in consumer complaint number 117 of 2006 was upheld. The impugned order of the District Forum has directed the revision petitioner/insurance company to pay Rs.14,74,000.00 along with interest at 8% per annum from 15/9/2006 till realization along with Rs.2000.00 by way of compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant/respondent M/s Sunil Pharma who is a wholesale stockist of medicines, had obtained a shop insurance policy for Fire and Burglary for an amount of Rs.16,00,000.00 for the stock of medicines and Rs.1,00,000.00 towards furniture in the shop. The policy was valid from 13/2/2006 to 12/2/2007. He had also obtained a credit loan facility of Rs.15,00,000.00 from the State Bank of India, Purani Godown, Gaya and hypothecated the entire stock in the name of the bank for which a monthly statement of stock was submitted for verification. During the validity of this policy a fire broke out in the shop of the respondent on the night of 14/15/3.2006. The fire brigade it was called and the fire was put out. The local police was also informed. On 16/3/2006 the petitioner was informed of the fire accident and a Surveyor, Shri Ajay Kumar was appointed to inspect the loss due to the fire. An inspection was carried out on 17/3/2006 and on 22/3/2006 and a list of the damaged medicines was prepared as all records had been burnt. The price of the medicines was provided by the insured as Rs.12,69,000.00 which according to the petitioner was exaggerated. The Surveyor addressed the Drug Inspector, Gaya to ascertain whether the medicines could be used after the fire. Since the respondent had hypothecated the stocks to the State Bank of India, Gaya the surveyor informed the bank that the documents had not been provided to it. The surveyor submitted his Final Report dtd. 17/7/2006 which stated that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had invested Rs.25,00,000.00 in the shop. It was also stated that the credit loan was only for Rs.10,50,000.00 and that no tax returns or stock statement had been had been submitted to enable verification of the value of stocks. In the absence of the relevant books of account the surveyor assessed the damaged medicines at Rs.1,75,000.00 and furniture at Rs.30,756.00. The total loss was assessed at Rs.3,35,815.00 after deduction of excess. The respondent, however, returned the loss voucher under protest.

(3.) Thereafter the respondent filed CC No. 117 of 2006 before the District Forum, Gaya claiming Rs.17,00,000.00 for the loss suffered by him along with Rs.2,00,000.00 towards compensation. On contest, the District Forum vide its order dtd. 8/10/2007 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.14,74,000.00 along with interest at 8% from 15/9/2006 till the date of realization along with Rs.2000.00 as compensation. In appeal, the State Commission held that there was no denying that the respondent was running a wholesale medicine business which could not be done with a paltry stock of Rs.1,50,000.00. It was held that the order the order of the District Forum was based on due consideration of facts and circumstances and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. The present revision petition has been filed against this order on the grounds that the lower fora did not appreciate fact that the surveyor had prepared the list of identifiable damaged medicines and advised the respondent to enter the cost price which had been done on an exaggerated basis. It has also been contended that the survey report should have been given weightage as it has not been proved to be unreliable. It is also contended that the complainant did not produce any evidence in support of his allegation against the surveyor and that even though the stocks were hypothecated to the State Bank of India, the Bank had not preferred any specific claim which indicated collusion between the bank and the respondent. It has been prayed that the order of the State Commission and the District Forum be set aside.