|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

Can burning 50 thousand cigarette packs not leave a stench, asks SC | India News


NEW DELHI: If smoking a single cigarette in a room leaves a strong smell for hours, imagine the stench that would float if 50,0000 packs, containing 10 or 20 cigarettes, were burned inside a warehouse!
Surprisingly, the surveyor found no odor of cigarette smoke when visiting the facility hours after the fire broke out. The missing stench prompted the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition on Friday seeking compensation of Rs 43 lakh for the alleged destruction of 50,000 cigarette packs. It confirmed a decision by the National Consumer Dispute Remedy Commission rejecting a store owner’s claim against New Insurance Co Ltd.
A bench of judges Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari were not impressed with the arguments of lawyer Qurratulain, who appeared for the Sunil General Agency, that the surveyor was at fault when the agency refused to pay the bribe and did not honestly record the scope. of damage to property caused by a fire at the store located on Kalas Alandi Road in Pune in 2009.
The bank said: “Up to 50,000 packs of cigarettes were burned in the fire that broke out at 2.30 in the morning. The surveyor comes to inspect the damage in the morning. But, he doesn’t find any strong smell of cigarette smoke there? possible? Find some remains of other good burned, but no cigarettes. We are not impressed by your argument about the denial of the bribe to the surveyor. ” He dismissed the appeal.
The shop owner had claimed compensation of Rs 70 lakhs for damage to his insured property, including Rs 43 lakhs for cigarette packs allegedly lost due to the fire. The insurance company, based on the surveyor’s report, approved compensation of Rs 20.7 lakhs. Both the State Consumer Commission and the NCDRC had confirmed the compensation of Rs 20.7 lakhs.
The surveyor in his report had stated that “the required storage location for the stocks alleged to have been burned is around 421 cubic feet. Had stocks in that much area burned, substantial identifiable debris / ash would have remained in the said area, which was not in the identified area … The debris at the site was from items other than cigarettes. ”
The insurance company said: “As there were no remains or debris of the cigarettes available in the area identified for storage, the loss of around 50,000 packages (5,630 boxes) is not justified. Even preliminary surveyors had commented that there were no overwhelming cigarette smell and no identifiable cigarette remains available when they visited. ”

Times of India