M/S. Hems Apparels vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

This review application has been filed by the appellant in Appeal No. 384 of 2014 which was decided by this Commission vide order dated 27th November 2015 and the appeal was allowed. This is the case where the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay Rs.16,75,976.07 along with 9% interest per annum. This Commission in appeal allowed additional amount of Rs.38,91,526.03 with interest over and above the claim allowed by the State Commission. This review has been filed for further enhancing the compensation.

Heard the learned counsel for both sides on the review application. The learned counsel for the review applicant stated that this Commission has mentioned in para 5 of the judgment related 27th November 2015 that no receipt has been placed by the complainant for the claimed amount of Rs.5,68,779.16 for washing of the garments. The learned counsel stated that the receipt has been filed along with the review application and the same should be considered.

The learned counsel further stated that for the repair expenses of machinery, it was mentioned in the appeal that the value of machinery was already depreciated in the books of accounts but surveyor applied depreciation again. Out of the accepted claim of Rs.5,78,986 the surveyor has deducted depreciation of Rs.4,03,514.50 for which there was no justification. However, this point has not been taken up for consideration by this Commission and therefore this point is raised in the review application so that a proper order may be passed.

The learned counsel for the review applicant also stated that the issue of loss minimization expenses was also raised in the appeal, however, the same has not been dealt with by this Commission in its final order dated 27th November 2015. The surveyor in his report has stated that loss minimization expenses can only be allowed up to 1% of the total claim allowed and therefore the surveyor has allowed only Rs.16,160.26 as against the claim of Rs.1,24,034/-. It has been stated by the learned counsel that there is no such condition in the policy though as per tariff dated 31st March 2001 there is condition of limit of 1% for debris removal charges. It was requested that this Commission should allow the claimed charges in respect of loss minimization expenses.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company stated that no receipt was filed for washing of the garments before the State Commission or before this Commission and therefore this Commission has rightly observed in its final order dated 27th November 2015 that no receipt in this regard was placed on record by the complainant. Thus, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in respect of this observation of this Commission relating to receipt.

It was further argued by the learned counsel that it is not necessary to deal with all the small small objections raised in the appeal if the same have been dealt by the State Commission on the basis of the report of the surveyor. Clearly this Commission has not found these items to be taken up separately as this Commission agreed with the report of the surveyor as well as the finding of the State Commission for these points. Moreover, if the appellant is aggrieved by non-consideration of these two items by this Commission, the appellant may approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing the appeal as review is only limited to the errors apparent on the face of the record. If the judgment of this Commission is deficient from any aspect, then the appeal is the only remedy.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record. So far as the issue of receipt for washing of garments is concerned, the learned counsel for the review applicant has agreed that the same was not available on record however the same has now been filed with the review application. It clearly means that this receipt was not available on the file of this Commission when the order was passed. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that this receipt was not filed before the State Commission. The learned counsel for the appellant has not denied this. Thus, I agree with the assertion of the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company that this Commission has rightly recorded the fact as prevailing at that time and there is no error apparent on the face of the record in this regard.

So far as the items relating to repair of the machines and loss minimization expenses are concerned; it has been submitted by the review applicant that these two items were raised in the appeal however, they have not been considered by this Commission. In this connection, it is seen that review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record as Section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:-

" Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face of record."

I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and I find no error apparent on the face of the record in respect of these two items in the impugned order. This Commission has not considered fit to interfere in the order of the State Commission which is based on the surveyor's report on these two items. Hence, nothing is mentioned about these two items in the impugned order. Thus, there can be no question of any error apparent on the face of the record.

On the basis of above discussion, the review application is dismissed.