IMPORTANT POINT
When there is material irregularity in the orders passed, the same can be set aside in revision petition.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 12.05.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.289 of 2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a businessman and he got one plot No.G-504 allotted to him for factory at Boranada. He got one shed constructed and three machines costing Rs.1,59,960/- were kept in the shed. He got the machines insured from the petitioner company from 11.7.2007 to 10.7.2008, (Policy No.140507/46/07/00000129). On 08.01.2008, when the respondent/complainant came to his factory, he found that the machines kept in factory had been stolen. On the same day, the complainant lodged FIR at PS- Jhanwar in this regard and also informed the petitioner company regarding theft. On 24.03.2008, the petitioner company sent its representatives at the spot and got the matter investigated by their investigator. On 03.4.2008, on the basis of the report of the investigator, the FIR and the statement made before the police, the petitioner company repudiated the claim of the respondent complainant in terms of the exclusion clause 8(a) of the Policy conditions. On 06.10.2008, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jodhpur, (First) (in short ‘the District Forum’) against the petitioner company alleging deficiency of service. The petitioner company filed the written reply to the above mentioned and contested the case. The District Forum, however, dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 21.11.2011. Aggrieved from the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the District Forum the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was accepted allowing the complaint on non-standard basis vide order dated 12.05.2016. Aggrieved from the order of the State Commission the petitioner/opposite party has approached this Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act by filing the present revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the premises of the complainant were unmanned and the machines were lying without any protection for more than 7 days and as per Exclusions Clause viii (a) of the policy the claim is not payable. Clause viii (a) of the policy reads as under:-

“if the premises shall have been left uninhabited by day and night for seven or more consecutive days and nights.”

4. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has forged a story that he had employed a chaukidar for safety of the premises, who had gone on leave when the incident of theft happened. There is no mention of chaukidar in the FIR. Even in the narration of his case given to the investigator, there is no mention of chaukidar and it has been stated by the complainant before the investigator that when the building was complete the machines were shifted and were kept there. From that very day till the date of theft, machines were lying in the factory compound. After receiving machines and up till date of theft the factory was lying closed because work was not started and factory gate was locked. This statement given by the complainant before the investigator clearly shows that there was no chaukidar kept for safety of the machines otherwise the complainant would have also stated the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no evidence in respect of the guard was filed by the complainant. The complainant could have very well produced the guard in person who would have provided his testimony. The complainant has filed the affidavit of Mr. Nathu Ram, the alleged guard after three years.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the final report submitted by the Police after investigation for closing of the case reads as follows:-

“The facts of the case ar