Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Prem Narain, Member
ASHOKA FIBRE - Appellant
Vs.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANR - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3218 of 2015
Decided On : 05-07-2018
Vivek Kumar Tandon, Adv., Mamta Tandon, Adv., Sanjay Rawat, Adv.
The legality of the incident of fire and electricity generation influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Fire Incident - Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Section 28 - Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, Section 45(A) - The court discussed the incident of fire, assessment of loss, and the legality of electricity generation. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 45(A) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the incident of fire was doubtful and the complainant had no permission for electricity generation beyond 10KW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's firm suffered a fire incident causing substantial loss. The insurance claim was not responded to by the Insurance Company, leading to a complaint being filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident of fire was doubtful and the complainant had no permission for electricity generation beyond 10KW, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.
Issues: The main issue was the assessment of loss and the legality of electricity generation, which influenced the court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the incident of fire was doubtful and the complainant had no permission for electricity generation beyond 10KW.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
Prem Narain, Presiding Member - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Ashoka Fibres against the order dated 07.09.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.1119 of 2014 in F.A. No.1632 of 2004.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.12.1999, the petitioner firm got itself insured with the respondent company. On 27.06.2000, unfortunately at about 01.30 a.m. fire broke out in the petitioner firm. Out of total stocks, stocks, assets worth Rs. 7,18,976/- stood engulfed/destroyed in fire, which also caused loss to the building of the 'Firm', the loss to the building was assessed at Rs. 79,525/-. The Firm suffered a total loss of Rs. 7,98,495/- in the said fire incident. The complainant filed the insurance claim which was not responded to by the Insurance Company. Despite many requests, the respondent company did not decide the claim, leaving no option for the petitioner except to file the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the complaint was filed on 14.12.2001. On 23.08.2002, the respondent company filed its reply to the aforesaid complaint. With its reply the respondent company also filed the assessment report of the surveyor in which surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 1,89,553/- + Rs. 36,341/-. On 24.05.2004, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. On 01.07.2004, aggrieved by the aforesaid District Forum's order the petitioner filed the appeal bearing no.1632 of 2004 before the State Commission, Haryana. On 21.10.2011, the State Commission finally dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed revision petition bearing No.2511 of 2012 before this Commission. On 11.11.2014, this Commission after hearing the petitioner allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the State Commission. This Commission remanded the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. On 07.09.2015, the State Commission again dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this Commission had remanded the matter to the State Commission for deciding all the issues raised in the appeal, however, the State Commission has again not decided all the issues rather has dismissed the appeal only on one ground that the incident of fire was doubtful.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission as well as District Forum despite admitting the incident of fire strangely held that the incident of fire was doubtful. It was the duty of the respondent company to have filed a complaint against the petitioner with the police authority if it was a fraud and forged case, but they have not done so.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the question for consideration before the State Commission as well as District Forum was never to go into the enquiry of occurrence of fire, rather, the question for consideration was, that whose calculation with regard to the assessment of loss was correct; whether the loss assessed by the petitioner was correct or the loss assessed by the respondent company was correct, but the State Commission erred in choosing the wrong path and not deciding the relevant question.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned that even if one assumes that no documents as sought by the surveyor were supplied by the petitioner, though it is categorically denied, but still, even in that case, the calculation of the loss assessed by the surveyor of the respondent company should have been allowed, but the complaint has been dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fora below failed to app
