IMPORTANT POINT
“Concurrent Findings of Fora below not to be interfered with normally.”

ORDER (ORAL)

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—This order shall dispose of all the above mentioned Revision Petitions since the facts and point of law in question involved in them is the same. Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.626 of 2020.

1. The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 22.01.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.218 of 2010. The said Appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 29.01.2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sundargarh-II, Rourkela (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.186 of 2006 filed by the Complainant. The Complaint was allowed by the District Forum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant being the Managing Director of M/s KCS Private Limited had filed the Complaint. The Complainant in order to carry out some work on behalf of the industry NALCO, Damanjodi and on behalf of the NALCO, purchased some machinery and materials from different places. He then booked the machinery and material through M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited for safe delivery at the industrial site of NALCO. In order to cover the transit risk of the machinery and material, he purchased a marine policy from the Petitioner. The said policy covered all risks in transit. When the said consignment was unloaded on 07.09.2004 at the site of NALCO, it was found that though the outward packaging of the material and machinery were intact, the goods inside packaging got damaged during the transit. He immediately intimated the Petitioner, within 2/3 days about the damage of the goods. A surveyor (duly approved and registered under IRDA (Insurance Regulatory Development Authority)) was appointed. The surveyor did the inspection of the goods and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,91,507/-. Based on this report, the Complainant filed the claim with the Petitioner for an amount of Rs.3,09,081/- which included the loss and the surveyor fee which was paid by him. This claim was not settled by the Petitioner and therefore, the Complainant filed the Complaint with the District Forum in 2006. The Petitioner subsequently appointed a surveyor/investigator of his own on 09.08.2006 who then submitted his report on 12.12.2006. The investigator/surveyor who submitted his report on 12.12.2006, subsequently furnished his marine assessment report dated 12.01.2007 and finally vide letter dated 21.03.2007, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground that the Complainant had failed to submit original documents and that the consignment was received by the consignee in the good condition.

3. There is no dispute regarding the facts that the goods were sent by the Complainant on behalf of the NALCO through consignee and the goods were received at Nagpur at the site of NALCO. It is not disputed that there was a marine policy for such transit of the goods. In the written statement, several objections have been raised by the Petitioner which have been dealt with by the Foras below. However, while challenging the order of the Foras below, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has confined its argument only to the fact that the Complainant had failed to supply the requisite documents to its investigator/surveyor and that there was no damage on the goods because there is no assessment of the damage done by the carrier. It is also argued that the surveyor Ms.Kabita Mohapatra appointed by the Complainant, who is registered under IRDA, has given the report, but has not given the documents to the surveyor/investigator of the Petitioner on asking and therefore, her report cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that all these contentions have not been considered by the Foras below and the findings of the Foras below are not based on cogent evidences and there