IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. National Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess evidences.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioners against order dated 24.07.2013 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 287/2012 wherein the Appeal filed by the Appellants/Petitioners was dismissed.

2. Shree Ambemata Industries is a small scale industrial unit processing and manufacturing CTD iron bars/rods, located at Plot No. A-5/1, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna. The case of the Complainants relates to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company for non-settlement of their claim for damages caused to their unit, due to fall of “Garpit” in Jalna city on 08.04.2002. Complainant No.1/Partnership firm was insured, vide Policy No.1116050101828/029 for the period 27.07.2001 to 26.07.2002. On receipt of information about the incident the Respondent/Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who visited the Complainant unit and assessed the loss. Against a claim of Rs.10 lakhs, the Respondent/Insurance Company settled the claim at Rs.87,976/- and deposited the amount in Central Bank of India, Industrial Branch, Jalna. Thereafter, the Complainants continuously followed-up the matter and demonstrated to the Insurance Company that there was a total damage to plant, machinery & building, but the loss had not been assessed and settled. The Insurance Company settled the claims of other policy holders but in their case, in collusion with the outgoing members of the firm, failed to settle the matter despite the survey report being in their favour. Aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the Respondent/Insurance Company, a Consumer Complaint was filed in the District Forum with the following prayer: -

“A. To call for the record and proceedings of the case.

B. To direct the respondent Insurance Company to settle the claim of the complainant no. 1 by offering an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- after adjusting the amount already paid for in making the part payment of the claim raised for with the penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 08-04-2002 till its realisation.

C. Or in the alternative, the respondent Insurance Company be directed to pay the aggravated losses and damages as per their own admission and to pay a sum of Rs.17,40,000/-to the complainant no.1 alongwith the penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 10-08-2003 till its realisation after adjusting the amount already paid for in part settlement of the claim.

D. To pass any other just and equitable relief in the interest of justice.

E. Costs of the complaint be awarded.”

3. In reply to the Complaint, the Respondent/Insurance Company submitted that after receiving intimation about the loss caused to the Complainants due to heavy rain and hailstorm, a Surveyor was appointed, who visited the spot and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.87,976/-. As per the said assessment, Insurance Company issued full and final settlement voucher which was signed by Shri Gopichand Shekhavatrai Dembda and the Complainants were, therefore, not entitled to any further claim.

4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and perusing the record dismissed the Complaint. The District Forum held that:

“Looking at the documents of complaint it appears that as per the report dated 18/8/2002 of surveyor Shri Sampat Jayant a sum of Rs.87,976/- has been correctly approved towards compensation and was deposited the bank account with Central Bank of India. The complainant did not produce any concrete evidence of sustaining loss more than this amount before the Forum. Under this situation no lapse in service on the part of non-applicant insurance company is seen.

Hence the Redressal Forum is passing the following order:

ORDER

1. The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed.

2. There is no order regarding the cost.”

6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Fo