JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present Appeal, under Section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 30.04.2021 of the State -2- Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.28 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the Complaint and issued the following directions: 18. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay an amount of ₹17,26,674/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Four only) towards loss of stock in the insured premises along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, i.e. 11.07.2016, till the date of realization; ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation and ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards costs to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are further directed to comply the order of this Commission within two months from the date of order. If the Opposite Parties fail to comply the order, they have to pay interest @ 12% per annum on ₹17,26,674/- from the date of order till the date of realization.” 2. This order is impugned before us by the Appellant who was the Opposite Party before the State Commission. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent (hereinafter referred as “the Complainant”), the proprietor of M/s Balaji Enterprises, 3/17, C/o Sri Venkateshwara Modern Rice Mill had purchased from the Appellant (hereinafter referred as “the Opposite Party”) a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for a sum of ₹33 Lakhs on payment of premium of ₹9,900/- covering the risk of the stock lying in their premises no.123, Avoliyi Village, Budhiti Post, Jalumuru Mandal of Srikaulam District. The Complainant subsequently shifted their business to Kothapeta -3- Street, Mandapam, Narasannapeta Mandal of Srikakulam District and duly informed the Opposite Party about the change of place of business. In the month of October 2014, due to Hud Hud cyclone, the paddy rice and broken rice stored in the rice mill premises were completely damaged. The Complainant submitted the claim with the Opposite Party. Mr. V. Abbu Rao was appointed as a surveyor who visited the site on 17.10.2014 and on 15.02.2015, he demanded certain documents which were duly supplied to him. He submitted his report on 27.03.2015, copy of which along with clarification report dated 21.06.2015 was supplied to the Complainant. According to the surveyor report, the value of the closing stock before it was hit by the cyclone and also certified by the Chartered Accountant was ₹40,42,337/-. The surveyor also recorded that the Complainant had tried to save the stock by putting GI/AC sheets over the paddy and rice stock but it was blown off, broken/bent due to cyclone. The Complainant also tried to save the stock by putting tarpaulin on it. He informed that the gunny bags in the premises were completely damaged as rain water entered into the premises. The surveyor assessed the loss at ₹1,17,083/-. He had assessed the loss noting in its report that only 100 quintals of paddy and 25 quintals of rice were damaged. -4- It is submitted that after the report of the surveyor and the explanation by the surveyor, on 26.09.2015 a legal notice was sent by the Complainant claiming a damage of ₹33 Lakhs. A reply dated 24.11.2015 was received by the Complainant and the Opposite Party had offered a sum of ₹,1,17,083/- towards full and final settlement which was not accepted by the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the State Commission. 4. In the Complaint, the Complainant alleged that despite the fact that the complete stock of rice and paddy was destroyed, the compensation offered is only for 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice and that, it amounts to deficiency in service. 5. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party. It is submitted that the surveyor had rightly assessed the loss at ₹1,17,083/- which was offered to the Complainant and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part. 6. There were other two Opposite Parties also but they did not file any written statement and they were proceeded ex parte. 7. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission and proved the documents. -5- 8. The State Commission after assessing the evidences on record reached to the conclusion that although the surveyor had in his report submitted that the rice and paddy stock was soaked, yet without any basis, he has reported that only 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice were damaged. The State Commission also held that the surveyor has not given any reason for taking the price of rice at ₹1893/- per quintal even though the market value of the rice is shown as ₹2103.70ps. and thus awarded the compensation. 9. The findings of the State Commission are impugned before us on several counts. It is argued that the loss has to be calculated at the rate of price at which the goods were purchased and not at the market price. It is further submitted that the surveyor has rightly recorded that the loss has to be calculated on the basis of 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice and the State Commission has erred in allowing the compensation for the entire stock of paddy and rice. It is submitted that the total stock of paddy and rice consists of 230 bags of paddy and 450 bags of rice and since the surveyor did not find the entire stock damaged, there was no occasion for the State Commission for rejecting the surveyor report. It is submitted that the surveyor report cannot be rejected like this. It is further argued that the State Commission -6- has awarded a sum of ₹7,90,700/- towards the loss of gunny bags and that the bags were only partially damaged and not fully damaged. Hence, the grant of such huge amount towards the loss of gunny bags is not justifiable. It is submitted that the findings of the State Commission are illegal, perverse and are not based on evidences on record. 10. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. 11. The admitted facts of the case are that the stock of the rice was consisting of 450 bags each bag containing one quintal of rice and the paddy stock was consisting of 230 bags, each bag containing one quintal of paddy. It is also not disputed, as observed by the surveyor also, that the Complainant made every effort to save the stock from the loss as they put GI/AC sheet and also tarpaulin but due to Hud Hud cyclone, the stock could not be saved. 12. The argument of learned Counsel for the Appellant that 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice were damaged, has no merit. The surveyor at no place has mentioned in his report that out of the entire stock , on his inspection he found only 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice damaged. Rather in his report, in clause 9, he has mentioned as under: -7- 9.0. STOCK AT RISK 9.1. All the stocks in the insured premises are at risk at the time of cyclone. 13. Under clause of inspection at clause 10, he has observed as under: 10.0 INSPECTION 10.1. We have inspected the insured premises on 17.10.2014 and found very few GI/AC sheets and lighting sheets are broken/bent due to cyclone. 10.2. The insured protected paddy bags by covering tarpaulin but because of severe winds paddy in AC sheet godown and rice in mill hall are exposed to rain and drenched. Gunny bags in loose are also found drenched. The details of valuation and Loss assessment are as under:” (emphasis supplied) 14. From the clause 10.2, as reproduced above, it is apparent that the entire stock of paddy and rice in mill was “exposed to rain” and “drenched”. The use of expression “drenched” and the use of expression “are exposed to rain” clearly shows that the entire stock of paddy and rice was exposed to rain and even the Complainant’s efforts to save it by covering it with GI/AC sheet or tarpaulin sheet could not protect it and the entire stock got drenched. The surveyor has also mentioned in his report that the value of the gunny bags was ₹7,90,700/-. He has also mentioned that the gunny bags in loose were also found drenched. The only -8- conclusion that can be drawn is that the gunny bags in which the stock was secured and the gunny bags which were lying loose were all drenched in the Hud Hud cyclone. The surveyor has valued the loss of gunny bags at ₹7,97,000/-. The State Commission, therefore, while granting ₹7,90,700/- towards the loss of gunny bags, has totally relied on the valuation report of the surveyor. 15. Although in clause 10.2, the surveyor has stated that the entire stock of 230 bags of paddy and 450 bags of rice were found drenched, he in the loss assessment has reached to a figure of 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice and thus calculated the loss of 125 bags of paddy and rice. However, this report is contradictory to his earlier observation in the report that the entire stock of paddy and rice was drenched. If the entire stock was drenched, then what was the measurement by which the surveyor reached to the conclusion that only 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice were damaged. His report does not suggest that he separated each and every gunny bag of paddy and rice which consisted of total 680 bags and each bag weighing one quintal. He certainly could not have done it and his report does not show that he took help of any labour or any person for segregating the -9- bags and reached to the conclusion that only 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice. He has not reported in his report that he checked each of 680 bags to check as to how many bags were damaged. His conclusion, therefore, to the effect that only 100 bags of paddy and 25 bags of rice were damaged is nothing but surmise and conjecture and has no basis, and is also contradictory to his own observation that the whole of the stock of rice and paddy was drenched and could not be saved despite the effort of the Complainant by covering it with GI/AC sheet or tarpaulin. The rice is a saleable item and when a person purchases stock and stocks it, he is expected to sell it and earn its profit. In that situation, the market price of the item on the date on which it was damaged has to be taken into account while calculating the loss. The State Commission has, therefore, rightly relied on the market value of the rice while calculating the damage. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out that the findings of the State Commission are based on conjectures or surmises. On the other hand, the findings are based on evidences on record, especially the surveyor report. We found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. -10- 17. Copy of this order be sent to the State Commission and the Complainant. | 
