BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 162 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.10 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I VISAKHAPATNAM
Between
P.Raghavendra S/o Seetharamaiah
Proprietor, M/s Raghavendra Book Stall
Gooty, Ananthapur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Mayuri Complex, R.F.Road,
Anantapur
Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.Maheswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents Sri E.Venugopal Reddy
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The order of the District Forum Ananthapur in C.D.No.10 of 2005 is under challenge by way of appeal preferred by the complainant seeking for enhancement of compensation from Rs.30,000 to an amount of Rs.2 lakhs along with interest and costs
The complainant is a proprietor of M/s Ragavendra Book Stall at Goothy in Anathapur District. The complainant obtained Shop Keepers Insurance Policy bearing No.2004/508 for the period commencing from 6.9.2003 till 5.9.2004. The sum assured in terms of the insurance policy issued by the opposite party is Rs.2 lakh. A fire accident occurred in the shop of the complainant on the intervening night of 28/29 December 2003 at 1.30 a.m. and on being informed of the incident the complainant contacted the fire station at Guntakal. The fire official extinguished the fire at 3.30 a.m. The complainant contended that there was stock worth of Rs.2,90,000/- in his shop at the time of the accident and that all the account books purchase bills were burnt. The complainant lodged a complaint with the policy Goothy. The police registered a case in Crime No.158 of 2003.
The complainant informed the opposite party about the accident. The official of the opposite party inspected the premises and conducted preliminary enquiry as also estimated the loss. At the request of the opposite party, the complainant submitted few bills relating to the transactions of his shop which according to him were accidentally not kept in the shop. The opposite party through letter dated 24.9.2004 informed the complainant that he had submitted fake bills and demanded the complainant to submit a certificate from the electricity department to show that the shop was burnt due to electric short circuit. The complainant contended that there were no eye witnesses nor was there any provision of law empowering him to obtain a certificate from the electricity department to the effect that the shop was burnt due to the short circuit. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 11.10.2004 and being not able to get any response thereto, he has filed the complaint.
The opposite party defended the claim contending that only copies of the bills were furnished by the complainants were found to be fake. The endorsement to that effect was obtained from the shop owners concerned. The certificates given by the fire office and mandal revenue office in regard to the estimation of the loss are not binding on the opposite party. The opposite party has not repudiated the claim of the complainant. Only further documents were sought for clarification. The surveyor of the insurance company assessed the net loss at Rs.20,989/-. The complainant is said to have approached the District forum with unclean hands.
The complainant examined himself as PW1. Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on his behalf.
The Senior Assistant of the opposite party J.Premchand has filed his affidavit. Exs.B1 to B6 have been marked on behalf of the opposite party.
The District Forum has dismissed the complaint relying upon the surveyor’s report and opining that the complainant’s shop was not registered under APGST&CST Act. It was opined that the complainant has not produced the sales tax or commercial tax receipts nor he is an income tax assessee.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant has filed the appeal contending that the complainant has submitted the available purchase bills and that the surveyor’s report was contradictory to the claim of the complainant. The surveyor was stated to have prepared the report in favour of the opposite party.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law?
There is no dispute of the fact that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Ragavendra Book Stall which he had insured with the opposite party for the sum assured Rs.2 lakh against the fire and allied perils on stock of books and stationary. It is also not in dispute that the complainant’s stock was gutted in fire that broke out in the intervening night of 28/29.12.2003 at about 1.30 a.m. On being informed of the incident, the complainant lodged complaint with the police Goothy who registered a case in Cr.No.158 of 2003. The complainant has stated that he had informed the fire department who extinguished the fire. The complainant claimed loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- of which he sought for the sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party has appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant has not produced bills either before the surveyor or to the opposite party.
The complainant relied upon the endorsement made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Goothy for the purpose of assessment of the loss sustained in the fire accident. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Goothy had issued certificate dated 31-12-2003 that the complainant’s shop was burnt in fire that occurred at 2.00 A.M. and the estimated loss of all the materials in the shop and the cost of the building was about Rs.3,00,000/-. There is no evidence as to the time the Mandal Revenue Officer has visited the spot. According to the complainant all the bills and other documents were burnt in the fire. On what basis the Mandal Revenue Officer had come to the conclusion is not substantiated. The value of the building is not mentioned in any documents.
The police Goothy filed final report before the Judl. Magistrate of the First Class that they conducted scene of offence panchanama. The Sub-Divisional Electrical Engineer inspected the scene. According to the police, the Sub-Divisional, Electrical Engineer gave an oral statement which was not recorded. There is no direct evidence to the effect that the shop was gutted in fire that broke out due to short circuit. The final report can be relied upon relating to the oral statement of the Sub-Divisional Electrical Engineer who expressed his opinion that the fire was the result of short circuit. This fact of short circuit is established by the proposal submitted by the complainant whereto copy of fire accident certificate was enclosed.
The surveyor has inspected the shop of the complainant and he had verified the BillNo.835 dated 27.11.2003 and bill nos. 835 dated 27.1.2004 with the ledger records of the complainant and on verification he found the bill no.835 dated 27.1.2004 for Rs.7100/- as genuine whereas the other bill bearing no.835 dated 27.11.2003 found to be fabricated. The surveyor had verified the original copy given to the transporter, carbon copy posted to the consignee. In photocopy he had stated that the digit 1 was corrected as 11 and 4 as 03 and by doing the same the complainant had taken another photocopy of the same bill. There cannot be two bills with the same bill no. in the financial year. Hence, the surveyor opined that the bill no.835 dated 27.11.2003 was fabricated.
The surveyor Thimmarusu Naidu has submitted his report dated 14.8.2004 to the opposite party wherein he had assessed the damage caused to the stock kept in the shop of the complainant. The surveyor had opined that the volume of the entire building is 168 cubic feet and keeping in view of the volume of the building he was of the opinion that the quantity of the stock said to have been kept in the shop at the time of the accident was not such an extent as stated by the complainant. The option of assessing the loss based on quantity of ash, the surveyor has stated, was not available since the entire roof and side walls of the building were collapsed. Hence, he had opted the other option i.e., to conduct enquiry regarding the stock and business potentiality of the town. The surveyor has assessed the amount at Rs.30,989/- and deducting therefrom the policy excess of Rs.10,000/- the surveyor has recommended for payment of Rs.20,989/-. The complainant has availed loan an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from Syndicate Branch Goothy branch and the loan was sanctioned to him on 8.10.2003. The measurements of the building as noted by the surveyor is 6(w) X 10’(l) and 9’(h). The building was west facing with its side walls made of bricks with mud mortar outside cement plastering. Five wooden racks reported to be noted in the shop for arranging the books in order and a show case to exhibit the new products. According to the surveyor the possible volume of room for stock provision is 4ft (w) and 7ft (l) and 6ft (h) equal to 168cft.
The surveyor had in his report stated that the complainant had not registered his firm and he did not use to obtain stock purchase bills, sales bills, daily sales registered ledger and tax assessment for the preceding three years. Thus, according to the surveyor the complainant was doing the business without purchase bills and without making payment of any tax to the State Government. As such the supply of stock was stopped to him by his creditors. During verification of the stock statements submitted to the Syndicate Bank the surveyor had found discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the statement. Rs.1,40,780/- was stated to have been altered as Rs.2,25,780/- in the stock statement. In regard to the 17 copies of purchase bills submitted to him by the complainant, the surveyor had stated that the bills were fake since the complainant has stated that all his purchase and sales bills pertaining to the stock were burnt in the fire accident. The complainant has not substantiated how he could submit the copies of the bills as against his version that all the bills were burnt in the fire. The complainant has changed his version that few bills accidentally were not kept in the shop when the accident occurred.
The surveyor, on instruction from the opposite party, visited the shops whose names were mentioned in the copies of the bills to verify their genuineness. At the last two pages of his report, the surveyor had extensively dealt with the details of bill nos. with corresponding dates in the ledgers of shops such as M/s Yadalla Enterprises, Proddutur, M/s Kattamuri Agencies, M/s Venkatsai Agneices, M/s Saibaba Bags Corner etc. and found the bill no.01 dt.8.10.2002, no.8370 dt.7.10.2003, no.157 and 158 dt.8.10.2002, 62 and 63 dated 1.12.2003 and 3.12.2003 respectively and the bill no.698 and 700 dated 10.7.2003 and 4.9.2003, 9,15 and 920 dated nil of M/s Vijayasaid Slate Works Markapur and the bill no.20 and 420 dated 20.9.2002 and 27.12.2003 of M/s Gnaneswar Slate Works, Markapur found to be forged whereas the bill no.72 dated 27.9.2002 issued by M/s Kamakshi Slate Works Markapur for an amount of Rs.8,450/- was found to be genuine. The surveyor has taken the endorsement of the respective shop owners and the copies of the bills submitted to him by the complainant. On verification by the surveyor as aforesaid, the bill issued by Kamakshi Slate Works, Markapur only was found to be genuine.
The complainant has deposed that he had obtained loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from Syndicate Bank Goothy in the month of July 2003 and except that amount he had no other source such as immoveable property. He has stated that he did not submit the certificate from the Electricity Department in regard to the fire accident as required by the opposite party. In his cross examination, he has further stated that except at the time of obtaining the loan, he had not produced any stock statement to the bank nor he did maintain any ledger in regard to his business transaction. He has admitted that the opposite party has not repudiated his claim and it has sought for production of documents. He has admitted that he has not filed any documentary evidence to prove the actual stock kept in his shop at the time of the accident. In the light of his admission that he had not submitted any documents to show the actual quantity of the stock at the time of the accident and in absence of any other evidence, the appellant cannot seek for enhancement of the compensation. It was suggested, during the course of cross examination, to the complainant that the opposite party offered to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.30,989/- against the opposite party. The opposite party has not preferred any appeal. The complainant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount as awarded by the District forum. Absolutely, no evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to claim the amount as prayed for in the complaint. We are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the District Forum is reasonable and as such there is no justification in seeking for enhancement of the amount.
In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the District forum. No costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.15.06.2010
KMK*
