Decided on February 02,2009

Balaji Emporium Through Puran Chand Nagpal Appellant


ARUN KUMAR GOEL - (1.) COMPLAINT filed by the appellant for deficiency in service on the part of the respondent has been partly allowed by the District Forum, Bilaspur, vide order dated 16.11.2007, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 15/2006. While partly allowing the complaint respondent has been directed to pay Rs. 58,406 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17.1.2006 till realization, besides litigation cost assessed at Rs. 1,000.
(2.) RESPONDENT is not aggrieved from this order as no appeal has been filed by it. Whereas appellant has filed this appeal with a prayer to enhance the compensation, as according to it, the impugned order is the result of non -consideration of material that was before the District Forum below. Thus, it fell into error in not allowing the claim in its entirety.
(3.) ON the date of fire i.e. 22.2.2005, stock in trade including furniture, fixture and fittings but excluding money and valuables were insured in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000. Money insurance in transit not exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 per carrying was insured to the extent of Rs. 2,000, whereas public liability was covered to the extent of Rs. 10,000. This is evident from Annexure R.1 placed on record. This is duplicate copy of the Insurance Schedule filed and relied upon by the respondent. What were the terms and conditions subject to which the insurance was done in this case have not been filed with the reply by the respondent. Nor is any material placed on record that those were delivered/sent by the respondent to the appellant. Effect of both these factors will be examined hereinbelow. On receipt of information regarding the fire incident, preliminary survey was got done by the respondent from one Shri Vineet Kaura, Surveyor/Loss Assessor copy of his report is Annexure R.3. Final survey was got done by the respondent from Shri Surinder Kumar Soni, Chartered Accountant. Copy of his report is Annexure R.4. Amongst other things, observation made by the Surveyor who carried out preliminary survey in Annexure R.3 about the loss is, that it was highly impossible to keep the stock of Rs. 4.5 lakh in a shop of the size of 10' x l4', and that too provided with furniture/fixtures. In his final survey report, Annexure R.4, Chartered Accountant while assessing the loss has taken note of the income tax returns for the years ending on 31.3.2002, 31.3.2003 and 31.3.2004. In addition to these, he has also taken note of the sales tax returns for the quarters starting from 1.4.2003 and 31.3.2004 and 1.4.2004 and 31.12.2004. He has also considered the trading account. Sale between 1.1.2005 to 22.2.2005 being Rs. 1,43,368 were also considered. Further as per his report, in case of stocks between 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 as also increase in income for 2002/2003 was also considered by him. However, he came to the conclusion that the corresponding increase in the profits does not justify the increase in the volume of increase in the stocks. Finally after taking note of the quantities claimed, as also the sum claimed by the appellant, Shri Soni has recommended compensation after concluding that the total loss on account of stocks and furniture worked out to Rs. 68,406 Then after applying excess clause, he recommended the liability to the respondent insurer at Rs. 58,406.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.