IMPORTANT POINT
If the complainant could not prove the ownership of the article in respect of which insurance is claimed, he is not entitled for any relief.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Balaji Graphics against the order dated 24.09.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.480/2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2007 petitioner firm purchased Shanghai Wit Colour Digital Printer from Sh.Khasnood Khan Hazi, proprietor, Indian Plastic, Gali No.2 Pahar ganj, Delhi. On 21.12.2007, pre-inspection by Sh. Bhavnesh Babbar regarding insurance of Wit Digital Colour Printer and other electrical equipments of M/s. Balaji Graphics was done. On 31.12.2007, Insurance Policy No.360/602/44/07/58/30000043 commences with validity till 30.12.2008. In the month of February and March, 2008, damage to printer and electrical equipments due to voltage fluctuation occurs. The complainant then submitted the Insurance claim and the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor. On 03.08.2008 report of Sh. M.S.Makkar the surveyor is submitted wherein it has been reported that description of Printer machine is different from that in pre-insurance inspection report and that petitioner is not the owner of the machine. On 19.09.2008, claim of the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent Insurance Company. On 28.12.2008 letter was sent by Sh. Bhavnesh Babbar to Sr. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. clarifying the inspection report dated 21.12.2007. On 09.04.2009 legal notice was served upon the respondent Insurance Company regarding the claim of Rs.3,50,000/-. On 18.08.2009, consumer complaint No.311/2009 was instituted in District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Panipat, (in short ‘the District Forum’). On 14.02.2011, CC No.311 of 2009 was allowed by the District Forum and the District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,81,125/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of order of the District Forum, failing which the amount shall carry interest @8% from the date of filing of the complaint.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, on 24.03.2011, respondent instituted appeal in State Commission being FA No.480 of 2011. On 24.09.2012, FA No.480 of 2011 was allowed by the learned State Commission setting aside the order dated 14.02.2011 of the District Forum.

4. Hence the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal of the respondent has been allowed by the State Commission by accepting two major arguments of the Insurance Company. The first being that there were lot of discrepancies in the details of the machine provided by the surveyor in his pre-inspection report and the description given by the final surveyor in his report dated 03.08.2008 and the second being that the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the insured machine as the complainant did not have the ownership of the insured machine. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the pre-inspection report dated 21.12.2007, the surveyor had inadvertently mentioned the make of the machine as ‘Samsung’ and the mistake has been admitted by the surveyor Mr. Bhavenesh Babbar and he has sent a clarification vide his letter dated 28.12.2008 wherein he has accepted the mistake and has mentioned the make of the machine as ‘Solvent’. The counsel further mentioned that in this letter the surveyor Mr.Bhavenesh Babbar has accepted that he has again inspected the machine and he has found that this is the same machine which was pre-inspected by him. Thus, the assertion of the Insurance Company that the machine showed to the surveyor after damage was not the same machine which was pre-inspected, does not hold good.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant further submitted that with regard to the ownership of the machine, t