(Delivered on 09/02/2021)
PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. Appellant- Rozina Zulfikar Shamsuddin Samnani has preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 30/06/2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint No. 94/2015 by which the Consumer complaint filed by the present appellant /complainant came to be partly allowed and direction was given to the respondent /O.P. to pay sum of Rs. 1,52,900/- along with 8% interest as well as compensation and litigation charges. (Appellant hereinafter shall be referred as complainant and respondent as O.P. for the sake of convenience )
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be narrated as under:-
Complainant - Rozina Zulfikar Shamsuddin Samnani was resident of Ramnagar, Chandrapur and was dealing in the business of running electronic goods shop under the name and style Sony Traders. The complainant has taken a plea that she was dealing in the business of sale of electronic goods and was having the stock of electronic goods in the shop to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The complainant had also taken a policy of insurance from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- for electronic goods and Rs. 1,00,000/- for money in transit. Complainant had also paid a premium for sum of Rs. 5,815/- and the period of Insurance Policy was from 30/11/2012 to 29/11/2013. The complainant has alleged that in the night on 14/04/2013 a theft took place in his shop and all the electronic goods were stolen. Complainant thereafter lodged the report regarding the incident on next day on 15/04/2013 in the Police Station . The complainant also filed a claim of Insurance for a sum of Rs. 8,90,750/-. The complainant also supplied the list of stolen goods. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, police also registered Crime No. 119/2013 and charge sheet was also submitted in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur. The complainant has taken a plea that the O.P. namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. did not accept the claim of Rs. 8,90,750/- and only accepted the claim to the extent of Rs. 55,695/- The O.P. namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. had no valid reason or ground to reject the lawful claim of the complainant and so the O.P. had indulged in deficiency in service which amounted to unfair trade practice . Complainant was therefore left with no option but to file the present Complaint claiming the sum of Rs. 8,90,750/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of mental and physical harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges.
3. O.P. appeared and resisted the claim by filing written version. O.P. has admitted that the complainant had taken Insurance policy against the theft of property. The O.P. has taken a plea that after receiving the claim from the complainant it had appointed J.C. Bhansali & Company as surveyor and surveyor had after due inspection also submitted a report. The O.P. has taken a plea that the surveyor has given a repot that under the relevant policy TV, Fridge, Washing Machine, AC, Mocro-oven and goods of similar hazards only are covered and mobiles, cameras and DVD are not considered in the assessment. The O.P. has further stated that due intimation was also given to the complainant. The O.P. has denied that it had indulged into any deficiency in service. Complaint filed by the complainant was not tenable in law and so it deserves to be dismissed.
4. The learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur thereafter went through the evidence led by the complainant as well as O.P. The learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur also went through various documents filed by both the parties as well as written notes of argument. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record , the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 55,695/- given to the complainant was very less and complainant was entitled for the amount of Rs. 1,52,900/-. The learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur therefore allowed the complaint and directed the O.P./respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,52,900/- along with interest at the rate of 8% by judgment and order dated 30/06/2017. Against this judgment and order dated 30/06/2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur, the present appellant/complainant has come up in appeal.
5. We have heard Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Godbole, learned advocate for the respondent at length. We have also carefully gone through the record and written notes of argument filed by both the parties on record.
6. At the outset Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to the various documents placed on record by the appellant. Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the amount of Rs. 55,695/- awarded by the Surveyor was extremely meager. In this regard Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate has submitted that the present appellant /complainant had insured all the electronic goods which were kept in his shop and of which theft had taken place but the surveyor who allegedly carried out inspection had not taken this into consideration. In this regard Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate has drawn our attention to the fact that in the Insurance Policy description of the goods like TV, Fridge, Washing Machine, AC, Mocro-oven was also given and other goods were mentioned as items of similar hazard. Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate for the appellant has stressed that as per the Insurance Policy all goods as well as accessories were duly covered but this aspect was not taken into consideration and claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated by the Surveyor on the ground that the TV, Fridge, Washing Machine, AC, Mocro-oven and its accessories are covered but mobiles, Cameras, DVD etc. are not covered. . On this aspect Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate has drawn our attention to one document namely copy of assessment of loss of goods allegedly issued by the surveyor which was filed with covering letter dated 15/01/2015 and we have gone through the same.
7. If we turn to written statement /written version filed on record by the respondent / O.P., the respondent has taken a plea that the surveyor namely J.C. Bhansali & Co. had submitted the report after detailed survey. Further the Surveyor has also mentioned that amount was payable towards loss of TV, Fridge, Washing Machine, AC, Mocro-oven and its accessories but mobiles, cameras & DVD are not covered. Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate for the appellant has strenuously submitted before us that the document namely Assessment of Loss of Stock filed by the O.P. cannot be termed as report of Surveyor since it does not bear any signature or seal of the surveyor. We have also gone through this document which is nothing but a copy of assessment list with the foot note at the bottom and we feel that in the absence of any signature or seal the same cannot be termed as the valid report of Surveyor. It is needless to mention that the surveyor has to prepare the report after the visit to the spot of the incident and detailed report is prepared after taking into consideration all aspects. We do find that no such report of the surveyor has been placed on record. However, we find that the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur has taken into consideration the list (A-5) which is a list of items covered in the policy was stolen during the course of theft. After taking into consideration this loss due to theft the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,900/-
8. Coming now to the main grievance of the appellant. It is contended by the appellant/ complainant that the appellant /complainant had in fact suffered the huge loss due to theft of Rs. 8,90,750/- which was unreasonably reduced. Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur had not taken into consideration the list of stolen goods attached with claim filed by the complainant. We have also heard the learned advocate for the respondent on this point and also gone through the copy of First Information Report (FIR) and other papers. If we go through the copy of FIR the same gives an elaborate description of the entire spot namely the shop where the theft of electronic goods had taken place. However, the copy of FIR also shows that the offences under Section 457 as well as Section 380 of I.P.C. were also registered vide Crime No. 119/2013 but surprisingly enough the contents of FIR are silent on the amount or value of the loss of electronic goods. Apart from this, we also find that the appellant /complainant has not placed on record any copy and statement of stock entry regarding other goods which were in the electronic shop of the complainant. It was easily open to the complainant to also file on record the copies of purchase bills or invoices regarding the purchase of the stock of electronic goods and in the absence of these material documents no inference can be drawn regarding the theft of all the electronic goods as claimed by the complainant. On the contrary, we are of the view that the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur has not merely accepted the report of the surveyor but has also granted the amount towards loss of items like mobiles, cameras and DVD etc. and other items and we do not see any reason to disturb or interfere with the said findings.
9. In the light of aforesaid discussion we are unable to accept the contentions advanced by Mr. Pandhare, learned advocate for the appellant that the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur has committed any error in giving the findings and so we feel that the appeal is devoid of any substance and so we pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Appeal is hereby dismissed.
ii. Appellant and respondent shall bear their own costs
iii. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.
