&K STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAMMU

Quorum:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Sunil Hali                              ...President

Sh. D.K. Kapoor (Retd.) District Judge                             ...Member

Appeal No. 3757/15

Date of Institution: 24.11.2015

Date of Decision: 27.03.2019

  Jagjit Raj S/O. Sh. Ram Ditta

  Prop. M/S Bawa Mashandar Nath Furniture and Shuttering

  House, Biaspur, R.S Pura, Jammu.  

                                                                  … (Appellant)

      Versus

   1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

      Paloura Top[, Jammu through itrs Head Office,

      GE Plaza, Airport Road, Ywrawada, Pune 41106.

   2. M/s Rural Bank Jammu,

Branch Dablehar, Tehsil R.S Pura

Through its Manager.

                                                                 … (Respondents)

Appearing Counsel:

Mr. Sunil Malhotra for appellant.

Mr. Vishnu Gupta for respondents.

O R D E R

Per President  

                This appeal has been filed against the judgment of District Forum who has awarded a compensation of Rs. 21,000/- alongwith the interest at 7% w.e.f 28^th May, 2008.  He was awarded Rs. 15,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation charges.

This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court.The facts in this case are not in dispute that a fire broke out in the shop run by the complainant/appellant herein on 13^th/14^th March, 2008.An intimation was accordingly given to the Insurance Company as well as the Police who registered a FIR in this behalf.It appears that the revenue agencies were also intimated about the loss.The grievance of the appellant is that the surveyor has not correctly assessed the loss caused to the complainant after recording the fact that property at risk was Rs.2,33,950/-.He further states that the consent letter, sought to have been obtained from the complainant, was done under duress and misrepresentation.His further contention is that after surveyor had recorded that the value of the stocks was approximately at Rs. 4 Lac, he has wrongly assessed the loss at Rs. 31,000.This in nutshell is the submission of the appellant.

It is right that the surveyor, who is a statutory authority, assumes precedence over all other witnesses in the matter of assessing the loss as they are authorized to do the same.The report of surveyor undoubtedly is not the last word as it can be questioned by both the parties after indicating the reasons in this behalf.There is a surveyor report which concludes that the loss caused to the appellant is only Rs. 31,000/- . It is also admitted that the safe stocks are to the tune of Rs. 2,02950.It has also come on record that the complainant submitted the list of stocks signed by him to the surveyor.It is on the basis of this list submitted by the complainant that the assessment of the stocks was made by the surveyor.The surveyor has categorically admitted that the stocks were in existence as per list provided by the complainant.What he had further to assess is as to what was the loss caused to the stocks.He has found that the loss was only to the tune of Rs. 21,000/- and other stocks were unaffected by the fire.It is also admitted that the complainant had not maintained any book of accounts nor did he produce any bill of purchase indicating the value of stocks which existed as on day.Therefore, it is unsafe to rely on the contention raised by the complainant. It may be pertinent to mention that the surveyor was cross examined by the appellant and no question was put to him regarding the manner in which the assessment of loss was made of those stocks which were not in existence.Therefore, surveyor statement cannot be rejected in this behalf.

In view of this, we do not find any force in this appeal.However, reduction of Rs.10,000 is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 3000/-.With this appeal is disposed of.Some amount is already paid to the bank; whichever amount left to be payable shall be paid to the bank.

Announced

27.03.2019

MEMBER                     PRESIDENT