AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Singh, Member
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 18.01.2010 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', passed in Appeal No. 527/2002 arising from the Order dated 31.01.2002 in Complaint Case No. 554/94.450/2001 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'.
The Complainant before the District Forum, M/s S. D. Industries through its Proprietor, is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant Firm'.
The Opposite Parties No. 1 and No. 2 before the District Forum, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, are hereinafter being referred to as the 'Insurance Company'.
We heard the learned Counsel for both sides, and perused the material on record.
The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim.
The chronological adjudication in the two fora below is as follows:
[a] The District Forum vide its Order dated 18.12.1998 dismissed the Complaint.
[b] The Complainant Firm appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated 16.07.2001 remanded the case to the District Forum for decision afresh after affording opportunity to the Complainant Firm to prove its case:
"In view of the matter, the Commission is of the view that opportunity to the appellant is required to be afforded to prove his case. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted to the District Forum, Rohtak for a fresh decision on merits after affording two opportunities each to the parties to prove their case. This will be subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent before the District Forum."
[c] In adjudication afresh, the District Forum vide its Order dated 31.01.2002 dismissed the Complaint, inter alia holding that:
"7. In crux, the complainant has sought the required relief that 40000 litres of quenching oil, which is considered to be a raw material, was destroyed in the fire accident, hence, he is liable to be paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with another Rs.1,50,000/- losses of earning etc. The complainant could not produce the required evidence in support of his pleadings. It is regretted that no bills of purchase of the said quenching oil could be produced before this Forum, neither the accounts book are produced in support of his pleadings. The non-production of these documents is defended with the reason that the same were destroyed in the floods in 1995.
"8. Our attention is drawn to Mark-A, photocopy of Surveyor report dated 6.12.1992 and statement dated 27.03.1996 of Sh. S. K. Yadav, Surveyor recorded in his complaint, reveals that no record of purchase as well as accounts book were shown to him in 1992 much before the alleged attack of floods in 1995. It is therefore we see no weightage in the assertions of the complainant.
"9. Our attention is again drawn to the last line of column 10 of Mark-A, Surveyor report dated 6.12.1992 where it is clearly mentioned that "THERE IS NO LOSS OF ANY TYPE OF RAW MATERIAL". It is pertinent to mention here that the only raw material was provided with the insurance shelter by the OPs.
"10. No supporting evidence could be produced by the complainant inspite of remand of this complaint by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh.
"11. We have given a thoughtful consideration to all aspects of this complaint, we are of the considered as well as unanimous opinion that the complainant could not prove the assertions of his pleadings. We see no merit in this complaint. It is therefore, this complaint is hereby dismissed accordingly. File be consigned to the record room."
[d] The Complainant Firm appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated 18.01.2010 dismissed the appeal, inter alia holding that:
"We have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration facts and circumstances of the case as well as report of the surveyor, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that "no record of purchase as well as accounts took are shown to him in 1992 much before the alleged attack of floods in 1995. It is therefore, we see no weightage in the assertions of the complainant." It was further mentioned in the report that "there is no loss of any type of raw material". Even otherwise also, the comm. Has miserable failed to rebut the version of the surveyor report and to prove any kind of loss caused in his factory premises on account of fire incident on 20.1.1992 by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence, in the absence of which, the District Forum left with no other option but to dismiss the complaint vide its well reasoned order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal."
The short point in this case is that the Complainant Firm averred that 40000 litres of quenching oil amounting to Rs.1.50 lakh was destroyed in a fire incident on 20.07.1992.
No evidence to substantiate its said averment was adduced by the Complainant Firm before the District Forum. Specifically, no bills of purchase relating to the said quantum of quenching oil or accounts' books were produced by the Complainant Firm. The Complainant Firm took a plea that the concerned documents were destroyed in floods that occurred in 1995. However, the District Forum noted that, as evinced from the statement dated 27.03.1996 of the Surveyor available before it, no record of purchase as well as accounts' books were shown to him in 1992, much prior to the floods in 1995. In the absence of any acceptable proof of purchase of 40000 litres of quenching oil, averred to have been destroyed in the fire incident on 20.07.1992, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint.
The State Commission also determined similarly, noting that no convincing evidence was produced by the Complainant Firm to support its averment.
The Insurance Company had not accepted the Complainant Firm's claim of 40000 litres of quenching oil having been destroyed in the fire incident that occurred on 20.07.1992.
In the two Consumer Protection Fora below, sufficient opportunity, and more, was provided to the Complainant Firm to adduce evidence in support of its averment.
The two fora below arrived at concurrent findings .
We note that the State Commission and the District Forum passed their respective Orders dated 18.01.2010 and dated 31.01.2002 after appraising the evidence and with reasons given.
Within the ambit and purview of section 21(b) of the Act, we find no crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below as may cause to require de novo 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, as may require interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
The Revision Petition is dismissed.