AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - M/s Heliwal Krishi Shit Gruh Nagpur Pvt. Ltd., against the order dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. A/ 2008/ 452.
The brief facts of the case are that some materials were imported from Myanmar to Nagpur and the opposite party is the shipper. The consignment was opened at Nagpur and it was found that the consignment was damaged to some extent. A surveyor was appointed and the surveyor assessed the loss. It is the case of the petitioner/ complainant that the insurance company paid 75% of the assessed loss and 25% of the amount assessed by the surveyor was retained on the ground that no damage certificate was produced by the complainant from the opposite party. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur ('the District Forum') being complaint case no. 418 of 2007. The District Forum vide its order dated 13.03.2008, dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal being FA no. A/2008/452 before the State Commission. The State Commission has also dismissed the appeal.
Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the insurance company has retained 25% of the amount as assessed by the surveyor on account of the fact that no damage certificate having been issued by the opposite party. Learned counsel has further stated that the insurance company has not sent anything in writing in this regard but has asked orally that the damage certificate be produced to get the remaining 25% of the assessed loss. Learned counsel has further informed that the insurance company has not been made a party in the present complaint case as the complainant does not have any grievances against the insurance company. The complaint has been filed only to get the damage certificate from the opposite party.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ opposite party has stated that both the fora below have dismissed the contention of the complainant and have given concurrent finding that the damage certificate is not required to be issued by the opposite party. Learned counsel has further stated that OP was only responsible for the consignment from Myanmar to Chennai and beyond Chennai, if the consignment has been damaged, then the OP is not responsible, therefore, the OP cannot issue the damage certificate. It was also argued that the complainant has not made insurance company a party in the present case, otherwise, the matter would have been sorted out.
We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. First of all, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that no letter has been issued by the insurance company asking the complainant to submit the damage certificate to get the remaining 25% of the assessed loss. Moreover, both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts, therefore, this Commission cannot reassess the facts in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286" wherein the following has been observed:-
"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
Moreover, the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that there is no provision in the policy that the damage certificate is required by the insurance company to release the insurance claim of the complainant. As the insurance was from Myanmar to Nagpur, it was logical that the damage would be noticed at Nagpur and the damage was noted at Nagpur. Normally, it is the duty of the insurance company to settle the claim on the basis of the surveyor's report if the report is accepted by the insurance company. If the claim was not settled as per the surveyor's report, the complainant had the full right to make a complaint against the insurance company, however, the same has not been done. We are also informed that the remaining amount is about Rs.26,000/- only which is required to be paid by the insurance company to the complainant. The complainant may approach the insurance company for release of the pending amount and if the matter is not sorted out, the complainant would be free to file a consumer complaint against the insurance company for release of their detained amount. In that case, the delay in filing the complaint would stand condoned, if the complaint is filed within a period of three months from today.
Based on the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present revision petition no. 4505 of 2014 and the same is dismissed with the above observations.