NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2008 OF 2012
(From the order dated 24.02.2012 in M.A. No.179/2011 in CC No.82/2010 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
70, B.C. Road, Kalitala,
District – Burdwan – 713 101
Through Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office – 1, Jeevan Bharti Building,
124, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi – 110001 … Petitioner/OP
Versus
1. Sree Sree Madan Mohan Rice Mill,
Village – Sukur, P.O. Bantir,
District Burdwan (West Bengal)
2. State Bank of India
Khosbagan Branch, R.B. Ghosh Road,
Burdwan (West Bengal) … Respondents/Claimant
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sujoy Kr. Basu, Advocate with
Mr. D. Brata Chouduri, Advocate.
PRONOUNCED ON 11th SEPTEMBER, 2012
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in S.C. Case No. M.A. 179/2011 in CC No.82/2010 – SreeSree Madan Mohan Rice Mill & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by which application filed by the petitioner/OP under Section 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Section 4 and other relevant provisions of the Act was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed complaint before the State Commission and alleged that fire took place in the insured office-cum-manufacturing unit of the complainant hence claimed compensation of Rs.99,00,000/- from the petitioner/OP. Petitioner/OP moved application under Section 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 4 (IV) of the C.P. Act and submitted that claimant has used manufactured photographs to substantiate claim. It was further alleged that investigator appointed by the petitioner approached Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination of photographs but Laboratory refused to examine except on the direction of the Police or judicial authority. Hence, prayed that photographs marked Ex.‘X’ be referred to Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Complainant/respondent filed reply to the application and submitted that to avoid the legitimate claim of the complainant on account of surmise and conjecture, this application has been filed, hence, this application may be rejected as surveyor has not raised any doubt about the aforesaid photographs. Learned State Commission vide impugned order rejected application mainly on the ground that in the written version no such case has been represented by the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Aforesaid application under Section 13 (4) was filed by the petitioner on 12.7.2011 and written statement on 4.8.2011. Learned State Commission has observed in the impugned order that no such plea has been taken by the petitioner in the written submission but this fact is contrary to record. In paragraph 9 of the written submission, the petitioner has alleged “the tampered photographs submitted by the insured claimant and by the surveyor is annexed as Annexure “X”. Again in paragraph 10 alleged “this photograph of flame submitted by the Insured Rice mill to substantiate its claim seems to be manufactured documents. The insured rice mill was asked by the Insurance Co. vide letter dated 17.12.2009 as to who took the photograph of fire in reply the Rice Mill by letter dated 24.12.2009 confirms that the photographs were taken by them and submitted to the surveyor in support of their claim”. This clearly shows that petitioner has taken this plea in his written statement also. Petitioner has also mentioned this fact in its letter dated 4.1.2011. Thus, it becomes clear that petitioner’s main defence was that the aforesaid photographs were tampered manufactured by super imposing one photograph over the other. Merely because surveyor has not questioned genuineness of aforesaid photographs, application cannot be dismissed.
5. Section 13 (4) of the C.P. Act provides that State Commission has power to requisition report of the analyst from the appropriate laboratory and as petitioner alleged in his application that his request was not accepted by Central Forensic Science Laboratory, in such circumstances, State Commission ought to have allowed the said application and sent the photograph for examination to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory which will assist learned State Commission in arriving at the correct conclusion while disposing the complaint.
6. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the State Commission in M.A. No.179/11 in CC No.82/10 is set aside and application filed by the petitioner/OP under section 13 (4) of the C.P. Act is allowed and State Commission is directed to send the aforesaid photographs Annexure ‘X’ to Central Forensic Science Laboratory at the cost of petitioner for examination and report. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
.……………………………
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
..……………………………
( SURESH CHANDRA )
MEMBER
k
