IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate Court while deciding appeal is required to deal with all aspects and arguments raised by parties.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member— Both revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

2. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 20/2010 & 24/2010 – United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Minu Choudhary & Anr. & M/s. Shree Devi Stores Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeals, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Minu Choudhary/petitioner is proprietor of shop working in the name of M/s. Shree Devi Stores got it insured from OP No. 1/ Respondent No. 1 by two separate policies and complainant obtained cash credit facility from different OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2. Shop of complainant was burnt in the night of 17.11.2008 during subsistence of insurance policy due to electrical short circuit, goods of Rs.9,38,000/- in Complaint No. 37/09 and goods of Rs.4,98,278/- in Complaint No. 47/09 were burnt. Complainant intimated to OP and submitted claim to OP and OP No. 1 deposited in complainant’s account Rs.1,70,000/- in Complaint No. 37/09 and Rs. 1,30,739/- in Complaint No. 47/09 without consent of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed two complaints before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaints, admitted issuance of policy and also admitted assessment of loss and payment made by them to complainant. It was further pleaded that list of articles burnt in fire are same and similar in both the cases and also raised objection regarding issuance of two policies on the same premises. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 also resisted complaint and denied any deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.7,40,000/- in Complaint No. 37/09 and Rs. 2,74,261/- in Complaint No. 47/09. OP No. 1 filed appeals before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeals and dismissed complaints against which, these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

5. As there is delay of only 11 days in filing both the revision petitions, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeals without any reason by non-speaking order; hence, appeals be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide appeals by speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitions be dismissed.

7. Finding of learned State Commission runs as under:

“7. Having heard both sides and gone through above discussed admitted documents relied upon by the complainant and respondent, we find that the learned lower forum failed to appreciate contradictory claims of stock burnt. It also failed to assess that if the stocks were hypothecated, the payment if any should have been allowed as first charge to satisfy the loan amount of the banks. Accordingly we have no option but to set aside the impugned orders dated 17.11.09 in complaint case no. 37/09 and 19.11.09 in complaint case no. 47/09, being based on invalid documents.

8. At this stage we were informed by the appellants that the amounts of Rs.1,70,000/- in complaint case no. 37/09 on 27.3.09 and Rs.1,39,739/- in complaint case no. 47/09 on 9.3.09 have already been paid to the complainant. Therefore these two appeals are dismissed wi