NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 130 OF 2012
[Against the order dated 29.09.2011 in First Appeal No. 198 of 2007 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula]
National Controlling Equipment Industries
65, Luxmi Vihar, Near Sector-10
Village Jandi, Ambala City … Petitioner
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager
106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt … Respondent
Before :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Imtiaz Ahmad, Advocate
Pronounced on : 5th November, 2012
O R D E R
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
1. This revision petition by the complainant seeks to challenge the order dated 29th of September, 2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Panchkula (State Commission for short) passed in First Appeal No. 198 of 2007. By this order the State Commission has set aside the order dated 15.06.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (District Forum for short) passed in Complaint No. 189 of 2006 and dismissed the complaint. The District Forum vide its order had held that the claim of the petitioner/complainant was genuine and that he had suffered a loss of Rs.4,46,700/- and had directed the respondent/Insurance Company to pay the said amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim and in addition pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.1000/- as cost.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had obtained a loan against hypothecation of goods from Central Bank of India, Ambala City. In order to secure any risk to its loan amount, the said Bank had obtained an insurance policy to cover any incidence of theft for the hypothecated goods/articles for the period 30thof December, 2003 to 29th of December, 2004. Unfortunately, there was an incident of theft in the premises during the intervening night of 01.02.2004 and 02.02.2004 (wrongly stated as 31.01.2004 and 02.02.2004) and according to the petitioner/complainant goods worth Rs.4,46,700/- were stolen. An FIR was lodged with the concerned Police Station on 03.02.2004 and intimation in this regard too was given to the respondent/Insurance Company, who thereupon appointed Duggal Gupta and Associates, the surveyors, to assess the loss. The said surveyor after verifying the goods reported that the loss was only to the tune of Rs.14,798/-. Even this meager amount was not paid to the petitioner/complainant on the pretext of the petitioner/complainant not giving a letter of subrogation. Aggrieved by this attitude of the respondent/Insurance Company, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who, on contest by the parties and after considering their submissions, passed the award as already stated above. Aggrieved thereby the respondent/Insurance Company filed appeal before the State Commission, who has set aside the District Forum’s order and resultantly the complaint too has been dismissed. The complainant now, in turn, has filed the revision petition with the prayer to set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the award passed in his favour by the District Forum.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. His main contention is that the State Commission has blindly believed the report of the surveyor, who stated that the goods were purchased from a sister concern. According to him, there was no evidence to support this averment. Besides, if the documents were either forged or fabricated, the respondent/Insurance Company should have taken suitable action against the petitioner/complainant. His further contention is that the State Commission ought to have taken into consideration the list of stolen goods/articles of stocks supplied to the police on the next day of lodging the FIR and that should have been believed.
4. We have considered the learned counsel’s argument only to be rejected for the simple reason that the State Commission has thoroughly examined the facts, circumstances, background and the report of the surveyor, which has been extensively quoted in its order, and has correctly relied upon the report to hold that the authenticity of the purchases from a sister concern of the insured were doubtful. The list of stolen goods/articles was not furnished to the police at the first instance and the bills, which had been submitted, were procured after the occurrence of the theft.
5. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
( R. C. JAIN, J. )
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK)
(MEMBER)
Mukesh
