APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:    19^th    SEPTEMBER  2016

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 12.08.2015, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 317/2011, The Regional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashok Kumar Agrawal @ Ashok Chetan, vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order dated 28.04.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saharsa in  Consumer Complaint No. 10/2010, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was modified.

2.      The facts of the case are that the complainant, Ashok Kumar Agrawal @ Ashok Chetan is the owner of a firm called ‘Variety, D.B. Road, Saharsa’ and is in the business of selling clothes.  The complainant obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party (OP) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period 24.08.2007 to 23.08.2008 for an assured sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for risk against burglary, house-breaking, stocks and cash etc.  It is stated that there was theft in the said shop in the intervening night of 08/09.08.2008 for which, a case no. 355/2008 dated 09.08.2008 was registered with the local police under Section 379 of the IPC.  It has been alleged in the consumer complaint that there was theft of Rs. 25,824/- of cash from the safe and counter and Sarees worth Rs. 1,32,435/- were also stolen, making a total loss of
Rs. 1,58,259/-.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, demanding compensation for the cash and Sarees alleged to have been stolen alongwith compensation for deficiency in service and loss of business etc. and the total amount claimed was Rs. 4,33,259/-.

3.      In their reply before the District Forum, the OP Insurance Company stated that they had appointed a surveyor Anuj Kumar, who carried out the necessary survey and submitted report.  The surveyor visited the shop on 23.08.2008 and asked the complainant to submit the account books etc., but the account books and other documents were not made available to the surveyor for 16 months.  The complainant submitted the claim form also after 10 months of the final report submitted by the police in the matter.  The OP Insurance Company maintained that the figures of loss quoted in the consumer complaint did not find mention in the FIR, or in the statements given during police investigation.  As per the report of the surveyor, the claim of the complainant for Rs. 24,959/- was found to be in order, but the complainant refused to receive that amount.

4.      The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 1,88,259/- to the complainant as compensation.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  Vide impugned order, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum, saying that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be given to the complainant instead of Rs. 1,88,259/- alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.

5.      During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the order passed by the District Forum was a detailed speaking order and was in accordance with law.  There was no justification on the part of the State Commission to have reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum.  The learned counsel vehemently argued that under IRDA Regulations, a surveyor is required to submit his report within 30 days of the appointment, but in the present case, the said report had been submitted after a long gap of one year and five months.  The order passed by the State Commission should, therefore, be set aside and the order passed by the District Forum restored.

6.      I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

7.      The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments says that the report of the surveyor was submitted after a long gap of about one year and five months, whereas as per IRDA Regulations, the surveyor should have submitted his report within 30 days of his appointment.  A copy of the survey report placed on record, however, indicates that the surveyor received instructions from the Insurance Company on 21.08.2008 to conduct the final survey of the claim and for that purpose, he visited the shop of the insured on 23.08.2008 and also met the petitioner Ashok Kumar Agrawal.  The insured was advised to submit relevant books of accounts for verification, but he failed to submit the same.  The surveyor had recorded that the insured was reminded several times for providing the books of account and other relevant claim papers, but even after several visits to the premises and lapse of more than 16 months, he did not respond.  The insured submitted claim form with Xerox copy of purchase/sale account of ledger and cash book for 04.08.2008 to 18.08.2008 with financial statement of previous years in the last week of December, 2009 only. 

8.      In view of the assertions made by the surveyor in his report, it is clear that the delay had occurred on the part of the insured himself.  The version of the surveyor has not been controverted by the petitioner in any manner, neither they have provided any explanation for the delay in submission of the documents in question, which were material in taking decision about the claim in question.  The main ground taken by the petitioner in the grounds of the revision petition is, therefore, without any force and hence, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.  A perusal of the survey report further indicates that the surveyor found various discrepancies in the amount and information given in the claim form with the details given in the FIR and final report of police investigation.  As per FIR, the loss to stock of banarasi sarees had been stated to be worth Rs. 25,000/- only, whereas the loss of sarees has been stated to be Rs. 1,32,435/-.  In addition, the insured failed to submit purchase invoice to support the purchase price of the claimed items.  Moreover, the claim form was filled and signed by the insured on 18.09.2009 i.e. more than 10 months from the date of police investigation.  After carrying out a detailed item-wise analysis and taking into account the value of the stock etc., the surveyor stated as follows:-

            “Under above circumstance, considering the vacant space as appeared in photographs submitted by the insured, the amount of loss towards missing stock of Banarasi saree as reported in the FIR, was worth Rs. 25,000/- approx. and same was also confirmed as true by the Police in their investigation report, appears convincing and acceptable.”

9.      The surveyor further computed the net adjusted loss at
Rs. 24,959/- after taking the total value of the stock as on the date of loss.  In the revision petition, the petitioners have not been able to pinpoint any discrepancy in the report made by the surveyor.  A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum reveals that the said Forum has not given any cogent reasons to arrive at the figure of Rs. 1,88,259/-.  It was the duty of the District Forum to duly consider the points raised in the survey report and then give reasons for coming to their conclusion.  In the impugned order, the State Commission observed that since the surveyor had not taken notice of the loss of cash of Rs. 25,000/- from the safe as well as the counter, the complainant was entitled for the said amount as well.  The State Commission decided to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in total, for the alleged loss to the insured alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as compensation against mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.  As the thing stands today, since the Insurance Company has not challenged the order of the State Commission by way of any revision petition etc., the said order has become final qua the Insurance Company. 

10.    In the light of these facts, it is held that there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order, passed by the State Commission upheld, with no order as to costs.