Delay of 43 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

Petitioner insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum.

In narrow compass the dispute involved between the parties is that the respondent/complainant had been running and managing a business firm in the name and style of M/s Azad Auto Spare Parts at Gaya.  He insured his shop with the petitioner insurance company under Shopkeeper’s insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/- w.e.f. 26.2.1999 to 25.2.2000.  The risk covered was burglary and house-breaking.  In the intervening night of 8^th and 9^th September 1999, burglary and theft took place in his shop and miscreants decamped with various goods and articles i.e. the spare parts.   Police complaint was lodged.  Police submitted final report in which it was stated that the case was found to be true but no clue about the stolen articles and culprit was found.  Respondent submitted his claim to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,28,300/- on 21.1.2000, which was repudiated by the petitioner vide letter dated 5.3.2001, i.e., more than 14 months of the lodging of the claim, on the ground of violation of condition No. 5(iii) and 11 of the policy and lack of evidence on forceful entry of the miscreants in the shop.   

          Aggrieved by this, respondent filed Complaint before the District Forum.

          Petitioner had appointed two surveyors.  The District Forum, vide its order dated 30.11.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to indemnify the respondent by making payment to him of a sum of Rs.6,38,957/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 13.2.2001 till realization.  District Forum found that burglary and theft had taken place.  After recording the said finding, the District Forum assessed the loss at Rs.6,38,957/-.  The District Forum recorded the following finding :

“On this point the complainant has produced photo copy of stock register, purchase register and sale register and also has produce photo copy o cash memo of goods will spare parts and Laxmi Auto Spare parts, both firm of Delhi showing purchase of spare parts from these points in between January 1999 and before the alleged occurrence. The stock and purchase register show that previous stock of spare parts has been shown worth Rs.10,06,255/- and purchase of spars has been shown is Rs.2,18,870/-. Sale in this period from January 1999 to September 1999 has been shown as Rs.3,15,000/-. So far as the stock of Rs.10,06,255/- is concerned these stock does not seems to have been verified by any sales tax or commercial tax authority. These stock registered was not produced immediately before the first surveyor. Hence this stock amount cannot be taken into consideration. It appears that this insurance policy was effected on 26^th February 1999. In the policy itself the stock of spare parts has been insured for Rs.9,70,000/-. This shows that insurance company have insurance as per the documents of the complainant from January 1999 to September 1999 before alleged theft stock worth Rs.3,15,000/- had been sold out. Although the complainant has filed cashmemo about the purchase of spare parts during the period January 1999 to September 1999 but these cashmemo shows that no sale tax or central tax has been charged and paid in this cashmemo. Hence these documents do not inspire much confidence. Hence they are not taken into first surveyor Mr.Dhooper that when he had met inventory. The left out spare part were of worth Rs.16,043/- were found in the shop of the complainant.

Hence under the circumstance the claim of only Rs.6,38,957/- (Rs.9,70,000/-) insured amount minus Rs.16,043/- value of left out parts minus Rs.3,15,000/- value of sold out articles) seems to be the just and proper. The O.P. directed to pay Rs.6,38,957/- (Rs.six lakhs thirty eight thousand nine hundred fifty seven only) with 8% (eight) per cent) (interest PA from the date 13.02.2001 till the date of realization within a period of two months to the complainant.”

           Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission affirmed the finding recorded by the District Forum and came to the conclusion that the respondent had established that the shop premises had been ransacked by unknown miscreants and spare parts had been taken away by them.  State Commission reaffirmed the finding of by the District Forum regarding quantum by recording thus :

“There was assertion of the complainant-respondent that he had produced all the relevant and necessary documents-to wit, copies of stock register, purchase register, sale register, cash memos including purchase by him of spare parts from Laxmi Auto Spare Parts and Goodwill Auto Spare Parts, Delhi from January 1999 to September 2000.  The report of 1^st surveyor Mr.Dhooper also spoke of filing of the said documents by the respondent.  It was averred in the impugned order that the stock and purchase registers showed that previous stock of spare parts had been shown worth Rs.10,06,255/- and the purchase of spare parts during the period from January 1999 to September 2000 was worth of Rs.2,18,870/- and the sale during the same period was worth Rs.3,15,000/-.  The District Forum rightly observed that the stock of spare parts worth Rs.10,06,255/- did not seem to have been verified by any commercial tax authority and hence that could not be taken into consideration but since the policy was issued on 26.2.1999 covering risk of spare parts worth Rs.9,70,000/- and that would mean that the insurance company had at that time found the stock of spare parts worth Rs.9,70,000/-.  Accordingly, the District Forum concluded that at the time of incident there was stock worth Rs.9,70,000/- and prior to incident spare parts worth Rs.3,15,000/- had been sold out.  After commission of burglary and theft spare parts left out in the shop worked out to be worth Rs.16,043/-.  The District Forum calculated loss to the tune of Rs.6,38,957/- (Rs.9,70,000/- minus Rs.3,15,000/- minus Rs.16,043/-) which the respondent was put to due to commission of burglary, house breaking and theft in his shop.  We see no reason to make a note of dissent from the findings/conclusion arrived at by the District Forum.”

The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments is regarding quantum.  Record produced by the petitioner has been perused.  Fora below have come to the conclusion that the loss caused to the respondent was to the tune of Rs.6,38,957/-.  The said finding is based on evidence produced on record.  Moreover, this is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

          We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.