ORDER HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER 1. F.A. No. 567 of 2013, challenging the Order dated 30.05.2013 passed in C.C. No. 73 of 2010 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, has been filed by M/s Sat Medical Hall, the Complainant before the State Commission, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant Firm’, seeking enhancement in the Award made by the State Commission. This Appeal has been filed within limitation. 2. F.A. No. 642 of 2013, challenging the same Order dated 30.05.2013 of the State Commission, has been filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Opposite Parties No. 1 to No. 3 before the State Commission, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Insurance Company’, seeking quashing of the Award made by the State Commission. This Appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 16 days. In the interest of justice, to decide this cross Appeal of the Insurance Company together with the Appeal filed by the Complainant Firm, the delay is condoned. 3. UCO Bank, the Respondent No. 4 in F.A. No. 567 of 2013 and the Respondent No. 2 in F.A. No. 642 of 2013, was the Opposite Party No. 4 before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Bank’. 4. We heard learned Counsel for the Complainant Firm, the Insurance Company and the Bank, and perused the entire material on record including inter alia specifically the Order dated 30.05.2013 impugned in both the F.A.s and the two Memoranda of Appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case, objectively enunciated, without critique, are that the Complainant Firm had availed Cash Credit Limit and other Loans from the Bank. Its Stock was hypothecated with the Bank. It took a Fire (Floater) Policy from the Insurance Company for its Stock, valid from 13.10.2009 to 12.10.2010, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Policy’. The assured amount was Rs.40,00,000/-. A fire occurred in its Shop in the midnight of 14/15.11.2009 i.e. one month after taking the Policy. It made a claim of Rs. 33,42,772/- with the Insurance Company for loss to its Stock. Surveyors, Loss Assessors and Investigators, a Chartered Accountant Company, engaged by the Insurance Company, finally assessed the loss at Rs. 3,35,252/20p. The Insurance Company sent the assessed amount of Rs. 3,35,252/20p. to the Bank, with which the Stock of the Complainant Firm was hypothecated. The Bank credited the said amount of Rs.3,35,252/20p. in the account of the Complainant Firm. Still there was an amount of Rs.30,64,233/96p. due from the Complainant Firm to the Bank. The State Commission in its impugned Order has quantified the loss of Stock at a lumpsum Rs. 20 lakh and directed that same be paid by the Insurance Company to the Complainant Firm. 6. We note that: [a] The Complainant Firm had obtained Cash Credit Limit and other Loans from the Bank. Its Stock was hypothecated with the Bank. The Bank had declared its account as Non Productive Asset (NPA). [b] The incident of fire took place on 14.11.2009. The Complainant Firm reported the incident to the Police on 17.11.2009 i.e. after 3 days. It procured a certificate from the Fire Officer on 18.11.2009 i.e. after 4 days. It reported the matter to the Insurance Company on 18.11.2009 i.e. after 4 days. [c] The Written Version of the Insurance Company inter alia avers that: “the present complaint is not maintainable in its form as the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. Infact the CC A/c of the complainant with OP No. 4 has already been declared NPA and the OP No. 4 UCO Bank has taken over the possession of the shop in the residence of the complainant. Thus, it is crystal clear that the complainant is seeking the compensation from the answering OP parties on very high scale in order to meet the irregularities of the CC limit account of the complainant, which otherwise has been appropriately and adequately assessed after thorough survey and investigation by survey report dated 12.03.2010 by S. Sony and Company.” ; and “The complainant submitted the fire insurance claim form on 03.05.2010 after almost 5 ½ months of the incident of fire” ; and “the conduct of the complainant is quite evident from the fact that the complainant has annexed an old policy for the year 2006-2007 of some other insurance company i.e National Insurance Company Ltd. while pursuing the present complaint against National Indian Assurance Company.” (emphasis supplied by us) [d] The Survey Report dated 12.03.2010 of the Insurance Company made by its Chartered Accountant Company inter alia avers that: “The firm is enjoying the bank limit and is filing the bank stocks statement with the bank on monthly basis. But insured was not maintaining any stock records. Most of the sales and purchase were made by cash only. However, on verification of books and records, it was observed that the insured is not maintaining the books and records properly, since the sales and purchases were not entered properly.” ; and “From the above, it is clearly proved that the books of accounts of the insured is not authentic and reliable.” ; and “Insured claimed approx. Rs.30,00,000/- for damaged stock in the form of burnt ash, which was not possible at all. In support of his claim insured provided list of purchase invoices against which the damaged stock was purchased. On going through the details it was observed that the invoice details include purchases of a single item for the period from April-09 to date of loss through a number of invoice related to different months. In our opinion if a shopkeeper had stock of an item, he would not be purchasing the same item again and again without clearing the old stock. So, we were not convinced with the evidence of the insured. Moreover the insured had not making or receiving the payments through bank and mostly the cash transactions are there”. (emphasis supplied by us) 7. We note that allegations of malafide have been made by the Insurance Company against the Complainant Firm (we make it clear that we have not examined whether the allegations are substantiated or not). 8. We also note that the State Commission has arrived at its Award on the basis of “some guess work” (“Although, the exact position of the stock of the value at the time of fire cannot be assessed, but some guess work has to be done”) and assessed the loss at lump sum Rs.20 lakh (“In our opinion, the interest of justice will be met if the amount of Rs. 20.00 lacs is assessed as the total loss caused to the complainant in the fire”). (emphasis supplied by us) We find the appraisal made by the State Commission to be decidedly shallow. We do not agree with the State Commission’s reasoning that “Although, the exact position of the stock of the value at the time of fire cannot be assessed, but some guess work has to be done” or that “In our opinion, the interest of justice will be met if the amount of Rs. 20.00 lacs is assessed as the total loss caused to the complainant in the fire”. Assessment of loss in a case of such specificities should not and can not be based on “some guess work”, it has to be based on deep appraisal of the evidence and arrived at with cogent reasons, an unreasoned and arbitrarily arrived at figure (“Rs. 20.00 lacs” in this case) cannot stand, unreasoned arbitrary guesstimates cannot stand. On this count alone, the State Commission’s impugned Order cannot sustain. 9. However, notwithstanding the afore, noting the entire material on record, and the specificities of the evidence involved, in our considered view, this case, for apt adjudication on merit, to do justice to it, requires recording of extensive oral evidence and proving extensive documentary evidence as per the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adherence to the substantive and procedural provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that is best undertaken in a civil court. In other words, we do not find the case, as discernible from the entire material on record, and from the specificities of the evidence involved, to be such as can be aptly adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings by quasi-judicial Consumer Protection Fora established under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 10. In the light of the brief discussion made above: [a] the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 30.05.2013 is set aside; and [b] the Complainant Firm is granted liberty to seek remedy in a competent civil court as per the law. It goes without saying that the right of the Complainant Firm to agitate its case before any competent authority remains unaffected. But Consumer Protection Fora established under the Act 1986, to provide additional remedy to Consumers, are not for it. It also goes without saying that the Complainant Firm, if it chooses to bring action in a civil court, is free to file an application under Sections 5 and 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency, the chronological proceedings in the Consumer Protection Fora would be material and relevant towards making such application. 11. We make it explicit that we have consciously refrained from entering into the merits of the case since the right of the Complainant Firm to seek remedy in a competent civil court or to agitate its case before any competent authority survives. 12. So disposed. | 
