ANUP K. THAKUR 1. Under challenge in this Revision Petition No. 3826 of 2013 is the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (‘State Commission’, hereafter) in FA/52/2012. Vide this order, the State Commission had allowed the appeal in part and modified the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri (‘District Forum’, hereafter). The District Forum, in C.C. No.2011/26, had allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/OP to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakh with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till realization towards indemnifying her loss in trade, with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the night of 24-25.1.2010, a fire occurred in the business premises of the insured, gutting entire stock, all documents, almirah, racks and shelves of Om Auto Centre. This resulted, per complaint, in the complete loss of stock valued at Rs.15,10,600/-. Police, fire station as well as OP-insurance company (OP hereafter) were informed. The gutted business had commenced in the year 2004 with financial assistance from State Bank of India, Barobisa Branch, by way of cash credit/ hypothecation loan, subject to terms and conditions which included submission of periodical stock statements. Cash credit limit enjoyed by the concern was upto Rs.15 Lakh. Per the complaint, the value of stock of motor spare parts and accessories at the time of fire was Rs.18,60,500/-. The OP appointed surveyor visited the spot and asked the petitioner/complainant (complainant hereafter) to prepare a damage list. This was done by her. It was however her case that all the documents such as cash book, ledger, voucher etc. had been completely destroyed; however, despite knowing this, OP had insisted on these documents and was not settling her claim. She therefore filed a consumer complaint which was decided in her favour by the District Forum as noted earlier. On appeal, the State Commission allowed the same in part and directed the OP to pay Rs.5,32,321.20 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till realization towards indemnification of the complainant’s loss of stock in trade, with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. This revision challenges the State Commission’s order reducing the claim from Rs.15 lakh to Rs.5,32,321.20. 3. The matter was heard on 26.2.2020. Counsels had agreed that final order may be passed on the basis of written submissions of the parties on record. 4. After hearing the learned counsels and considering carefully the record including the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the State Commission does not warrant any interference at the revisionary stage. 5. The only point of dispute in this revision petition is the amount of claim payable to the complainant. The State Commission has relied upon the assessment of the surveyor, on the ground that the surveyor’s report has to be given due importance and that when the surveyor’s report was on record, it was wrong for the District Forum to have not considered this important document. The counter argument of the complainant was that the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor in its report is not sacrosanct and in the instant case, since all documents had been admittedly gutted, it was appropriate for the District Forum to have relied upon not the surveyor’s report but on other evidence such as the statement of stock in trade, which was periodically submitted to the bank. 6. No doubt, the surveyor’s report is not always sacrosanct; however, it is an important document and its importance has been upheld by several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the National Commission. It is now well established law that if a surveyor report has to be contradicted, it has to be with sound, cogent reasons. The State Commission has correctly observed that it hardly found any material on record to contradict the findings of the surveyor and in the absence of any other viable document, the surveyor report could not be brushed aside. 7. It is apt, at this stage, to reproduce the relevant extract of the impugned order of the State Commission, to show that it had fully appreciated the import of the surveyor’s report: “In fact and in reality, the report dated 06.02.2011 of Mr. Indranil Bhattacherjee, Surveyor & Loss Assessor is an important document. There is vivid exposition of his inspection and enquiry, in which the representative of the respondent also participated. Regarding cause of damage, it was affirmed by him that it was unanimously stated that fire damaged all the stock-in-trade present in the shop premises and other property, namely, all the furniture, fixture and fittings, He has also tallied the identifiable goods charred in presence of the insured with the list of stock of materials given from the side of the insured, and find no similarly with the list and overstated. He found that out of a total stock of Rs.21,66,668/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs sixty six thousand six hundred sixty eight only), metal spares were of Rs.13,30,803.00 (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty thousand eight hundred three only) and rest were non-metal spares. Significantly, also the Authorised Distributor, of which the insured is the authorised dealer, of M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., in North Bengal, namely, M/s Siliguri Auto Work, confirmed that they have not sold any goods to the insured, i.e. from 01.04.2009 to the date of incident. Finally, upon consideration of all the facts and figures, he has come to the conclusion that in course of checking of the debris, having checked the metal parts and the list of damaged materials supplied by the l insured, it was apparent that there was huge difference in the number of material parts found as charred and present in the list. It was observed that 60% of the metal spares were overstated, and no non-metal spares were preset in the debris, which accordingly deleted. So, the maximum liability will be Rs.5,32,321.20 (Rupees five lakhs thirty two thousand three hundred twenty one and paise twenty only), being 40% of the metal spares present in the list submitted by the insured, i.e. 40% of Rs.13,30,803.00 (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty thousand eight hundred three only, though having no documentary basis, except physical presence of the debris. There is hardly any material on record to contradict the findings of the said Surveyor, which should be given utmost importance, in the absence of any other viable document.” 8. Based on above, the State Commission had correctly arrived at the finding that there was a loss after the fire suffered by the complainant and that the complainant was entitled to indemnification thereof. However, this amount was assessed by the surveyor at Rs.5,32,321.20 and this is the amount that the complainant was rightly and justifiably entitled to. I have no reason to disagree with this finding, based as it is on sound reasoning and on the surveyor’s report, a document of tremendous importance in settling such insurance claims, and a document that cannot be ignored as per well established law except for very sound and cogent reasons. 9. In view of the discussion above, after consideration, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. |
