AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Manilal against the order dated 14.11.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.A/11/531.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner has taken insurance from the respondent/opposite party for his jewellery shop. During the currency of the insurance policy, there was a theft in the shop on 24/25-10-2009 and some gold and silver ornaments were stolen as alleged by the complainant. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loss of Rs.44,551/- only. The Insurance Company offered this amount, however, the same was not accepted by the complainant. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Chandrapur, (in short 'the District Forum') and the District Forum finally allowed a claim of Rs.82,250/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of litigation as Rs.1,000/-.
Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal bearing No.A/11/531 before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2017 of the State Commission.
Hence the present revision petition.
Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the surveyor has not considered the bills given by the petitioner/complainant. When the FIR was lodged on 25.10.2009, all the details of the stolen items could not be given initially as the stock verification was going on and when the stock were verified, the complete list was submitted to the police afterwards. The total loss was about Rs.9,23,141/-, therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum and District Forum has allowed only Rs.82,250/- and the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Forum. It was stated that the loss of the complainant is much more than the loss assessed by the surveyor or the amount given by the District Forum. It was requested to issue notice to the Insurance Company and to allow the revision petition against the order of the State Commission.
It was further argued by the leaned counsel that both the fora below have not considered the documents filed by the complainant along with complaint. The complainant had also submitted the copy of the stock register etc. and the purchase receipts of the gold, silver ornaments and both the fora below have not considered this documentary evidence. Both the fora below have relied upon the FIR, but other documents have not been considered.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. Both the fora below have based their finding on the basis of the FIR lodged with the Police Station Chandrapur City on 25.10.2009 where it is clearly recorded that when the complainant opened shop and he checked his shop, he realised that gold chain worth Rs.80,000/- had been stolen. No other missing items are mentioned in the FIR. Later on, even if the complainant had added list of certain more ornaments after four days of the incident, the same cannot be relied upon as the submission of this list may be an afterthought on the part of the complainant to extract more money from the Insurance Company.
As FIR describes the nearest happening under the event and the complainant has not mentioned any other item in the FIR, therefore, both the fora below have rightly relied upon this FIR. District Forum has accepted this FIR and has given roughly double the amount as assessed by the surveyor and the same order has been upheld by the State Commission. No other substantive ground has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner to accept the revision petition.
Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 14.11.2017 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.1137 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.