The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in revising the decisions of lower forums.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

1. Present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 7.9.2017 in first appeal No.390/2017 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.3.2017 of the District Forum whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the insurance claim of Rs.6, 02, 351 alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim till recovery and cost of litigation of Rs.2000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had purchased Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period 23.7.2013 to 22.7.2014 for the building above plinth level situated at F/7-50, Opposite Tikona Park, Kashmir Avenue, Amritsar and also Householders Insurance Policy for the articles in the said property for the period 22.7.2013 to 21.7.2014. There was a fire on 2.5.2014 in the said property of the respondent due to short circuit which damaged the building and also the house hold articles. The respondent lodged a claim with the petitioner. The petitioner appointed a surveyor and the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1, 61, 600/-. Dissatisfied with the claim amount approved by the petitioner, respondent filed a claim with the District Forum. The petitioner took several objections including that the generator which was damaged in the fire and for which claim was repudiated by the respondent, was not covered under the policy. Respondent submitted the bills, which are as under: -

3. Both the parties led their evidences before the District Forum. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the evidences led by them, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that the generator was covered under the fire policy and hence the respondent was entitled for the amount spent on the repairs of the generator. The District Forum has held as under: -

"It is apparent to mention over here that the complainant has obtained two policies i.e. policy No.404402/11/12/3100000544 for his building covering the risk period from 23.7.2013 to 22.7.2014 for the sum assured Rs.50 lacs and another policy bearing No.404402/20/13/3600000833 covering risk period from 22.7.2013 to 22.7.2014 in which all the household articles were insured. The only plea of the opposite party is that generator repair is not covered under the fire policy. But the opposite party has failed to produce any evidence showing that generator repair is not covered under the fire policy. Rather the policy obtained by the complainant Ex.C-3 shows that all the household articles were insured under the fire policy. The opposite party has also failed to prove that bills produced by the complainant are not genuine and fabricated. So the documents i.e. repair bills produced by the complainant are proved to be genuine. Even otherwise also, report of the surveyor is not sacrosanct nor it was the final word on the matter. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2009) 4 CPJ 46 (SC) wherein it has been held that Suveyor's report is not last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from, it is not conclusive. The approved Surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report