Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/247/2016

M/s Velvin Computer and Electronics through Propriter Smt Chandrakala Kheradi - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Indi Ins. Co. Ltd.through Sevior Devision Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjeet Singh Kichad

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 247 /2016

 

M/s. Wellwin Computers & Electronics, C-1 Jayanti Bazar, M.I.Road, Jaipur through Proprietor

Vs.

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office 3^rd, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur through Sr.Divisional Manager.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 440 /2016

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office 3^rd, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur through Sr.Divisional Manager.

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Wellwin Computers & Electronics, C-1 Jayanti Bazar, M.I.Road, Jaipur through Proprietor

 

Date of Order 06.02.2017

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Ranjeet Kheechar counsel for the Wellwin Computers

Mr. Sanjeev Arora counsel for the Insurance Company

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the common order dated 1.2.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum Jaipur 2^nd hence, are decided by this common judgment.

 

The contention of the appellant Insurance company is that earlier the surveyor has assessed the loss as Rs. 9,92,391/- and it has been made open to consider and settle the claim on non-standard basis and admittedly the sum assured was Rs. 25 lakhs and stock was found of Rs.22,50,000/-. Hence, no under insurance was noticed but as the surveyor has pointed out many discrepancies in the stock sheet, sales and purchase bill and in actual stock, the quarries were raised vide Anx. Ex. P 17/1 which was answered by the consumer vide Anx. P 18/1 and the

3

 

matter was re-considered and surveyor has re-assessed the loss and after reduction of 40% on non-standard basis the amount of Rs. 4,91,434/- were paid. Under insurance was also considered and hence, claim has also been reduced on the above ground.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent consumer is that earlier the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,92,391/-. Thereafter no new documents have been submitted to the insurance company hence, claim should have been allowed totally and surveyor has not assessed the loss rightly. The consumer has suffered the loss of Rs. 13,22,100/- hence, the claim should have been enhanced.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that vide Anx. R-1 dated 18.3.2008 the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,92,391/- and liberty has been given to the insurance company to settle the claim on non-standard basis as stock register was not maintained and in some items sale was preceding to the purchase and other discrepancies were also

4

 

found in the sale and purchase voucher. Vide report dated 27.1.2009 the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,61,447/- and it is also clear from the report of the surveyor that for only two Zenith brand laptop deductions have been made but further the surveyor has opined that 40% should be reduced for non-standard basis but to arrive at the above conclusion no grounds have been mentioned. Hence, 40% deduction cannot seems to be reasonable. In view of the facts that consumer has not maintained stock register there is number of discrepancies in the stock sheet, sale and purchase vouchers and erosion in carbon copy, the insurance company was entitled for non-standard basis but on the facts of the case 25% reduction would be justified.

 

In report dated 27.1.2009 the surveyor has added the value of 24 laptops and net value of the stock is assessed Rs.29,34,679/- whereas in earlier report it was only Rs.22,50,000/-. There is no material in the report of the surveyor to arrive at the conclusion that 24 laptops are excess whereas in loss assessment he has disallowed the claim as regard to only 2 Zenith brand laptops and further more the brand of 24 laptops have also not been disclosed and further

 

5

 

more value of 8 laptops has also been deducted which has no basis and on the above ground the surveyor was of the opinion that it was under insurance by 14.81% whereas in earlier report of the surveyor he was of the opinion that no under insurance was noticed. Thereafter on the same material the surveyor has came to the conclusion which is prejudicial to the interest of the consumer. Hence, deductions as regard to under insurance are not acceptable.

 

The appellant Insurance company has placed reliance on II (2002) CPJ 94 (NC) Khivraj Motors Vs. V.Chandrababu and I (2015) CPJ 303 (NC) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Novex Enterprises where the National Commission has held that necessary documents could be filed at the time of appeal. There is no quarrel about this preposition and the documents submitted by the insurance company have already been considered. Hence, there is no controversy on the above point and in view of the above it could be concluded that the consumer is entitled to 75% of the amount of Rs. 9,61,447/- as assessed by the surveyor on 27.1.2009 vide Anx. A-1

 

In view of the above the appeal of complainant consumer is dismissed and the appeal of insurance company is

6

 

partially allowed and it is ordered that insurance company shall pay 75% of the amount of Rs. 9,61,447/- i.e. Rs.7,21,085/- to the complainant consumer within one month from today. Rest of the terms of the order needs no change.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm