Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31/07/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.372/2008, Manik Agro Agencies through its Prop. P.K. Ranshur V/s. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr., by District Forum, Solapur.
2. It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellant/New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’ for brevity). The insurance claim pertains to a theft/burglary committed at the shop of complainant-Mr.Pralhad keshav Ranshur (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’ for brevity) which occurred on 07/12/2006 at around 1.30 to 2.00 p.m. Total loss due to burglary was `22,95,000/-. The District Forum accepted the contention of the complainant and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation of `3 Lakhs along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 26/11/2008. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal.
3. At the outset it may be mentioned that consumer complaint filed against Branch Manager of Osmanabad Branch of the Insurance Company and also against the Branch Manager of Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Branch Vairag, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur. The consumer complaint was allowed only against the Insurance Company. In the appeal original opponent No.2-Branch Manager, Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd is not made party and as such the Insurance Company does not want to press the appeal as against said opponent-Bank. The consumer complaint contested by the Insurance Company and even appeal is filed by the Insurance Company only and as such mis-description of opponent No.1-Branch Manager of Insurance Company is left without any significance.
4. We heard Learned Counsel Mr.Sanjit Shenoy appearing for the appellant. Respondent and its counsel preferred to remain absent in spite of intimation of the date of hearing.
5. In the instant case, Surveyor could not verify the stock and cross check with the Account Books since it is alleged that all those documents pertaining to the stock were also stolen and therefore, were not available. It appears that the stock statement of the month of August to November 2006 filed by the complainant with the Bank to whom the stock was hypothecated was produced on record. The District Forum found that on reading that stock statement, shop of the complainant was recording stock on an average more than `22 Lakhs. However, referring to the value of the property stolen as a result of burglary as mentioned in the F.I.R., (which was of `4to5 Lakhs), the District Forum in its own wisdom granted compensation on lower side to the extent of `3 Lakhs. Appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement stood dismissed in the earlier part of the day. Under the circumstances, we find that whatever assessed by the District Forum while granting compensation for the loss due to burglary cannot be faulted with. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company appears to be devoid of any substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 27th September 2012.
