AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the revisionist - complainant against concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission wherein the two fora below have not found deficiency in service on the part of the respondent - insurance co. The District Forum vide its Order dated 27.12.2005 dismissed the complaint. The State Commission vide its Order dated 19.12.2016 dismissed the appeal.
Brief details, shorn of unnecessary detail, are that the revisionist - complainant had taken 'Shop Keepers Insurance Policy' valid w. e. f. 19.05.1992 to 18.05.1993 from the respondent - insurance co. Payment of up-to-date premium towards the insurance policy is not disputed. That the complainant's shop was looted in riot on 12.12.1992 is not disputed. That claim of Rs. 2, 21, 962. 24p was filed by the complainant is not disputed. That Rs. 1,52,164/- was paid by the insurance co. towards indemnification of the loss is not disputed. The only question in dispute in this case is deduction of Rs.69,798/- by the insurance co. that was claimed to have been kept in the safe / almirah of the shop and was claimed to have also been looted.
The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the case, and vide a reasoned Order dated 27.12.2005 dismissed the complaint, inter alia observing that:
The complainant at the time of receiving the said insurance amount of Rs.1,52,174/- did not raise any objection before the insurance company nor had produced any evidence that he received the said amount under protest. The complainant received the amount with his consent and entire satisfaction...... In this way the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service against the respondent hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their cost of their own.
The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, again appraised the case, and vide a reasoned Order dated 19.12.2016 dismissed the appeal, inter alia observing that:
The complaint is silent about the details of the cash in his complaint. There is no mention in the complaint about the breaking of the "safe of the shop" during the incident of riot. The FIR is also silent relating to this aspect of the matter. No reason, much less a cogent reason has been assigned for non-disclosure of amount of loot of cash from the "safe of the shop" in the complaint, claim petition or in the FIR. Besides this, he has claimed a sum of Rs.69,798.24 towards payment of loot of cash from the shop whereas, the shop was insured for Rs.20,000.00 towards money in transit, Rs.4,000.00 only towards sale and Rs.2,000.00 in the counter, totally to Rs.26,000.00 only under Money Insurance, Section III (A) (B) and (c) respectively. Admittedly, the incident did not take place during transit of the money as such, this amount was not payable to it under Section III of the Policy. ..... The settlement was as per the terms and conditions of the Shop Keepers Insurance Policy and there was no element of malafide in the same. There is no irregularity or illegality or remiss in the finding of the Ld. Forum below and thereafter, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist - complainant, and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the respondent - insurance co. was present.
Considering that this consumer dispute relates to an event of the year 1992, and considering that it is stated in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay that the revisionist is an old person who is suffering from old age ailments, with view to finally adjudicate and close this chapter in consumer fora, we overlooked the delay of 29 days in filing this revision and heard the case on merit.
This revision has been filed by the complainant under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the Order dated 19.12.2016 of the State Commission. Section 21 (b) reads as below:
....to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
We find the State Commission's impugned Order dated 19.12.2016 to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. We note in particular the observations of the two fora quoted in para 3 and 4 above. Within the meanings and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.
There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.
The revision petition being misconceived and devoid of merit is dismissed.