Haryana

StateCommission

A/22/2016

SATYAVEER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF PATIALA - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN BAANTH

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                                                First appeal No.22 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 08.01.2016

Date of Decision: 12.05.2016

 

Satyaveer Singh S/o Kanhiya Lal, prop. Of M/s Aryan Pharmaceuticals, Park Road, Behind Govt. Girls College, Gohana Distt.Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. State Bank of Patiala,  Main Branch Gohana, Distt. Sonepat,  through its Manager/Authorised person.

2.      United India Insurance co., Ltd., Plot No.78, above Union Bank of India, Delhi Road, Sonepat, through its Manager/Authorised person.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Varun Baanth, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Parveen Nagpal Branch Manager of respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Munish Goel, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

           It was alleged by the complainant that he was running business under the name and style of M/s Aryan Pharmaceuticals, Park road, behind Government Girls College, Gohana, Distt.Sonepat and obtained insurance policy from the opposite party (O.P.) No.2 valid from 21.01.2011 to 20.01.2012.  On 12/13.01.2012 at about 07.30 A.M. when he came to the shop the lock was found broken and the medicines were stolen from his shop.  FIR No.21 dated 13.01.2012 was registered to this effect at police station (P.S.). Gohana City.  He suffered loss to the tune of Rs.Six lacs.  Untrace report was furnished on  26.07.2012. He lodged claim with the insurance company, but, the same was not allowed.

2.      Both the O.Ps. filed separate replies denying their liability to pay compensation.  It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that complainant opened cash credit account with it and it was not liable to pay any compensation.

3.      O.P.No.2 alleged that the complainant got the FIR registered on 13.01.2012 in-collusion with the police. He informed it(insurance company) after expiry of more than one year from the theft whereas he was to inform within 14 days as per terms and conditions of insurance policy.  It was also found that complainant changed the place of business without any information.  He failed to produce any evidence regarding the stock on 01.04.2009.  He did not submit monthly stock statement to the banker and banker declared his cash credit amount as NPA.  Objections about accruing cause of action, jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 11.12.2015.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File pursued.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that  surveyor demanded the documents after three months of his appointment. Some documents were supplied to him, but, he did not consider them. From the perusal of the details of stock, Annexure C-8, it is clear that he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.Six lacs.  Learned District Forum did not appreciate this evidence and wrongly dismissed the complaint.

8.      This argument is of no avail.  As per facts mentioned above, insurance company has alleged that information about theft was given to it after one year of the occurrence, whereas he was supposed  to inform within 14 days.  Though the complainant alleged that he immediately lodged claim with the insurance company, but, he has failed to substantiate the same.  He has not produced any copy of claim form etc. Surveyor visited his shop on 20.03.2013 as mentioned in Ex.C-7.  Had he lodged complaint immediately the surveyor must have been gone there and then. Why he kept low for such a long time is no-where explained by him.  More so, as per his version he come to know about the theft at 07.30 A.M. on 13.01.2012, but, he lodged FIR Annexure C-1 at 07.10.P.M. i.e. after 12 hours of the incident.  There is also no explanation about this delay. Further, as per Annexure C-7 the complainant was asked to furnish so many documents i.e. stock register, stock statement sent to bank etc. , but, he failed to furnish the same. When he has availed cash credit facility from bank he must be submitting the stock statement, but, has not produced the same. That was the best piece of evidence  to substantiate his version.  Annexure C-8 is bunch of loose papers written in hand which can be prepared at any stage.  In the absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be presumed that the articles mentioned therein were stolen.

9.      More so, the estimated value of the stolen articles was told as Rs.Six thousand when FIR Annexure C-1 was lodged after 12 hours of incident.  He  was having sufficient time before lodging FIR to check the stolen goods. So it cannot be presumed that he suffered loss to this extent.  Had he suffered loss to this extent he must have supplied the documents desired by the surveyor. Even otherwise he could have produced those documents during the pendency of his complaint. He should have requested the District forum to ask the bank to produce the stock statement if available with it.  In the absence of any evidence to this effect his version cannot be believed.  The learned District forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect from every angle and rightly dismissed the complaint.

10.    Any how the claim is not sustainable on the merits, but, it cannot be disallowed on the ground of change of place of business because the same was not mentioned in the insurance policy, copy of which is annexure C-4.  Only address of insured is mentioned therein.  Had it been mentioned therein that the stocks lying at a particular place are insured then it could have been a different matter. Even if  this plea of O.P. cannot sustained, impugned order cannot be disturbed on merits as discussed above.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

May 12th, 2015                      Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                             Member                                              Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                                       Addl.Bench               

S.K.