AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this revision challenge is to the order dated 19.12.05 of State Commission, Delhi. By the order dated 13.8.1998 the District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner/opposite party to pay Rs. 2,56,175 with interest � 12% p.a. to the respondent/ complainant. In appeal by the petitioner the State Commission substituted the interest as awarded by District Forum by awarding consolidated amount or Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation.
RESPONDENT took a marine insurance policy of Rs. 50 lakhs from the petitioner. The policy covered the risk of conveyance/vessel from anywhere in India to anywhere in India. Policy also included the inland transport (rail or road), non-delivery clause and SRCC clause. Respondent alleged that on receiving order for supply of cotton seed oil from Oswal Foods Ltd., Khalilabad, Basti, it purchased cotton seed oil from Dabra Cotton Pvt. Ltd. vide bill No. 87 dated4.2.1997 for an amount of Rs. 2,92,000. Oil was loaded in tanker No. 8433. Purchaser was having another business premises at Ghaziabad. When the tanker reached Ghaziabad, GR was endorsed for Khalilabad, Basti. On way to Khalilabad the tanker met with an accident on 7.2.1992 and the driver of tanker lodged FIR with the Police. Respondent informed the petitioner-Insurance Company about the accident telegraphically as well as by the letter dated 7.2.1992. Petitioner deputed three Surveyors one after the other. On non-settling claim, complaint claiming amount of Rs. 2,56,175 with interest was filed by the respondent which was contested by the petitioner. One of the pleas raised by the petitioner was that the respondent had given consent letter to settle the claim to l/3rd amount of the loss to Deepak Chopra and Co., 3rd Surveyor and in view of that consent letter the respondent is not entitled to the amount claimed. Mr. H.C. Goyal for petitioner � Insurance Company submits that he has got the consent letter given by the respondent to Deepak Chopra and Co., Surveyor and respondent is not entitled to the amount as awarded by the Fora below. As may be seen from the order of District Forum aforementioned amount of Rs. 2,56,175 towards loss of oil was awarded to the respondent on the basis of report of J.C. Gupta and Co., 1st Surveyor. Last but one part of the order of District Forum notices that the 3rd Surveyor in their report had stated that they impressed upon the respondent to agree to 1 /3rd of the loss amount and consent letter of the respondent, was attached with the report but copy of that letter was not found annexed with the report. Order further notices that there was no proof of the respondent having consented to 1 /3rd of the loss amount as alleged. Alleged consent letter was also not filed before the State Commission. Even no application seeking permission to place it on record has been filed in this revision by the petitioner. In this backdrop, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by District Forum as modified by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.