1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (“the State Commission”), in CC No. 41 of 2012 wherein the State Commission partly allowed the Complaint.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is a 7 days delay in filing this Appeal.  For the reasons stated in IA/8589/2014, the delay is condoned.

3.      For Convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. “M/s. Bhupinder Tyres Works” is identified as the Complainant (Appellant herein). Meanwhile, "New India Assurance Co. Ltd." is referred to as the Opposite Party (OP)/Insurer (Respondent herein).

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the complainant firm is running a business of tyres, tubes, and allied goods under M/s Bhupindra Tyres Works. The shop is insured with the OP under two policies viz. Policy No. 361500/48/10/34/00000197 for ₹23,50,000/- covering stocks and ₹1,50,000/- for furniture and fixtures, valid from 18.6.2010 to 17.6.2011 and the second Policy No. 361500/11/10/00000217 covering the building (three shops) for the same period.  On 05.11.2010, a fire broke out at the shop, resulting in loss of about Rs.30 Lakhs. The fire was reported immediately, and the Fire Brigade extinguished the fire. A report was lodged with P.S. Julkan, District Patiala, and the OP was informed. The OP appointed Shri Deepak Malhotra as surveyor. He assessed the loss and submitted a report on 01.12.2010. Shri KS Chandhok, another investigator, confirmed that the fire was due to an electric short circuit and reported significant damage to stock, furniture, fixtures and the building. Despite repeated requests and a legal notice sent on 18.7.2011, the OP did not settle the claim. The OP closed the claim as "No Claim," alleging the cause of fire was doubtful. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking ₹30 lakhs for the damage to goods, 18% interest per annum, ₹5 lakhs as compensation, and ₹22,000/- for litigation expenses.

5.      The OP in its Written Version filed before the State Commission averred that the complaint is misleading and lacks a cause of action. The issue requires voluminous evidence, suggesting it should be handled by a Civil Court. They asserted no deficiency in service, stating the claim was handled per policy terms and closed as "No Claim" based on valid reasons. The preliminary report by Shri Deepak Malhotra acknowledged the fire but did not assess the loss.  The report of Shri KS Chandhok's 31.1.2011 questioned the legitimacy of the stock and the business setup, suggesting an attempt to fabricate a claim. The OP alleged discrepancies between stock statements of the Devigarh shop and the bank's records. They argued the complainant failed to provide proof of stock transfer between branches, and purchase bills did not relate to the insured premises. The OP emphasized the surveyor's report as a crucial piece of evidence, supporting their decision to deny the claim. They argued that the report highlighted inconsistencies and supported the "No Claim" conclusion. The OP maintained their actions were lawful and in accordance with policy terms. They requested the complaint be dismissed as it lacks merit.

6.  The State Commission vide order dated 18.09.2014 partly allowed the complaint and directed as under:

“14.    In view of the above discussion, we partly accept the complaint.  The complainant will be entitled to Rs.1,79,335/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 20.10.2011 till the date of payment Rs.50,000/- is also awarded as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Complainant/Appellant filed Appeal no. 1275 of 2014 seeking:

a) Call for the record of the trial court and be further pleased to set aside the order dated 18/09/2014 and the case be decided on merit and relief be granted to the Appellant as prayed in the main complaint, in the interest of justice.

b) Remand back the case for its proper adjudication.

c) Any other further order(s)/relief(s) as this Hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper may be passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondents, in the interest of justice.

8.      In the Appeal, the Appellant mainly raised the following issues:

A.  The State Commission failed to appreciate the facts of the case and adopted hyper technical means and pedantic considerations while the Appellant specifically mentioned that he is self-employed and running a tyre shop located at Bhunerheri and maintaining separate stock at Devigarh which was sole source of his livelihood.

B.  The Certificate dated 08.01.2011 given by the Punjab and Sind Bank certifying that the Appellant had a branch office at Bhunerheri and the State Commission ought to have considered the same.

C.  The Addendum Report dated 21 Sept 2011 by Consolidated Surveyors Pvt Ltd is based on totally incorrect observations/facts. The Shri Deepak Malhotra also prepared the details of stock damages, as per which the damaged stock is Rs.26,49,762/-. He estimated the loss of Rs.1,81,835/- for the other items. Verifying the saved stock in the premises and estimated as Rs.1,26,950/-. Не also visited the godown of the insured at Bhunerheri and verified the stock there also amounting to Rs.4,79,378/-.

D.  The OP closed the case as "No Claim" on the basis of false and frivolous grounds that the cause of fire is doubtful. Whereas, as per Fire Service Patiala and the police DDR report that cause of the fire is short circuit category of fire is major and nature of fire is simple.

E. The impugned order is against the provisions of law prevailing and as such on the facts and circumstances mentioned above herein, the present said order is liable to be set-aside.

9.      In his arguments, the learned counsel for the Appellant reiterated the complaint and grounds of appeal, stating that the Appellant suffered a loss of Rs.26 Lakh in the fire incident whereas the State Commission awarded only Rs.1,79,335/-.  He further contended that the Addendum Report dated 21.09.2011 by Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was based on totally incorrect observations and facts. The OPs closed the case as “No Claim” on the basis of false and frivolous grounds that the cause of fire is doubtful. The impugned order is based on ignorance and utter disregard of the provision of law and grave injustice and gross failure of justice will be caused to them. He therefore sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

10.    On the other hand, the counsel for Respondent argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. He sought to dismiss the First Appeal with costs. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:

a. Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 507;

b. Khatems Fibres Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2018, decided on 28.09.2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

c. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. And Ors., (2000) 10 SCC19;

d. Sportking Synthetics vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., IV (2019) CPJ 307 (NC).

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both parties.

12.    It is the contention of the Appellant that they suffered a loss of Rs.26 Lakh in the fire incident. While the OPs repudiated the claim as ‘no loss’, as the grounds of fire was doubtful. On the Appellant filing a Complaint, the State Commission awarded Rs.1,79,335/-. His main grievance is that the Addendum Report of 21.09.2011 by Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was based on incorrect observations and facts. He suffered huge loss and in utter disregard to the insurance policy, grave injustice was caused to them. On the other hand, it is the contention of the OP that the Appellant has no claim beyond the impugned order.

13.    It is and established position that the fire incident took place at the complaints on premises or 05.11.2010. The Complainant/Appellant reported the incident to the fire brigade, police and the insurer. The fire brigade attended to the incident and the police undertook necessary action. The Insurer had appointed Mr Deepak Malhotra for initial survey and he had visited the premises and filed a report dated 01.12.2010 determining the loss as Rs.1,56,780. Thereafter, the final investigation report into the incident was submitted on 31.01.2011 by Mr KS Chandhok. He brought out in the report that the Complainant/ Appellant had not shown concrete proof to establish that M/s Bhupendra Tyres, Devigarh is a Branch Office of Bhupendra Tyre Works, Bhunerheri. The signboard displayed at insured premises at Devigarh depicted Mr.Bhupender Singh is the Proprietor of Head Office, Bhunerheri and Sandeep Singh is a Proprietor of Branch Office, Devigarh. It is also revealed that major quantity of stocks lying at lower ground floor of the building comprised of old discarded tyres. In the absence of genuine purchase bills, the condition of old tyres cannot be established. And the Purchase Bills submitted by the insured in lieu of proof does not pertain to the captioned premises. Also, the physical verification of the residual of the tires that remained was about 56 KGs. From the residual remains it has been established that only 10% of the entire quantity of stock was damaged in the fire. The Insurer, therefore, repudiated the claim.

14.    The Insurer has not filed any Appeal against the order of the learned State Commission. It is an established legal position that survey reports need due consideration, unless the report reveals non consideration of material evidence or misrepresentation of facts, which is not the case. While the stock statements and other records were unclear, the State Commission, after detailed evaluation of records and consideration of the facts and circumstances of, determined the loss as Rs.1,81,835, based on the report of the surveyor Mr Deepak Malhotra. Notwithstanding the report of Mr. KC Chandok wherein no loss is assessed, the State Commission considered Rs.2500 as excess and determined loss as Rs.1,79,335 and awarded the same vide order dated 18.09.2014 along with interest @ 9%; Rs.50,000 as compensation; and Rs.11,000 as costs.

15.    In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that the detailed and well reasoned Order of the learned State Commission dated 18.09.2014 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and no interference is considered warranted. Therefore, the instant First Appeal No. 1275 of 2014 is Dismissed.

16.    There shall be no order as to costs.

17.    All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

18.    The Registry is directed to release the Statutory deposit amount, if any due, in favor of the Appellant after the compliance of the order of the learned State Commission.