IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) No cause is forthcoming to disregard or dismiss the self-contained self-speaking survey Report.
(2) Insurance Co. settled the claim in consonance with its Surveyor’s Report.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Member.—This Revision Petition has been instituted under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) in challenge to the Order dated 03.07.2017 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 410 of 2015 arising out of the Order dated 23.07.2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 1229 of 2012 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (now the ‘District Commission’).

The Petitioner, Cellular Shoppe, was the Complainant before the District Forum (the ‘Complainant’).

The Respondent, The Dy. General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., was the Opposite Party before the District Forum (the ‘Insurance Co.’).

2. Heard arguments from the learned Counsel for the Complainant and for the Insurance Co.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 23.07.2015 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 03.07.2017 of the State Commission and the Revision Petition.

3. Briefly, the dispute relates to an insurance claim arising from a burglary in the insured premises of the Complainant. The Insurance Co. settled the claim at the loss assessed by its Surveyor, which was less than the loss claimed by the Complainant.

4. The District Commission, vide its Order dated 23.07.2015, agreed with the loss assessed by the Surveyor in its Report of 11.07.2000. For the delay in settling the claim, the District Commission awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the Survey Report (11.07.2000) till the date of actual payment (by way of a discharge voucher received by the Complainant on 25.05.2012). It also awarded Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

5. The State Commission, vide its impugned Order of 03.07.2017, dismissed the Appeal.

6. Here we may first note that Investigation and Survey are fundamental in determining the amount to be paid to the insured. As such, an Investigation or Survey cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons.

However, having said that, it also goes concomitantly that the basis and rationale recorded in Investigation or Survey should be convincing and pass credence in scrutiny.

7. A perusal of the Survey Report shows that it records explicit facts and reasons in making the assessment of the loss. No cause is forthcoming to disregard or dismiss the self-contained self-speaking Survey Report, the basis and rationale for arriving at its conclusion have been manifestly brought forth in the said Report.

8. The Insurance Co. settled the claim in consonance with its Surveyor’s Report.

9. We see that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Commission.

No palpable error in appreciating the evidence is visible.

The award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, is just and equitable in the facts of the case.

No jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice, is visible.

10. We may add that the Insurance Co. has not challenged the Order of the State Commission (evidently, having settled the claim at the loss assessed by its Surveyor, it is not contesting the award of interest and cost of litigation).

On the Complainant’s Petition, in the obtaining context and situation, we find no need to examine the preliminary objection re maintainability raised by the Insurance Co. in the fora below, of the Complainant having first approached a civil court on the same issue before coming to the District Commission.

It is, but, made explicit here that this question is kept open by this Commission.

11. As far as the Complainant’s Petition is concerned, nothing warrants interference by this Commission in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

12. The Petition fails, being misconceived and bereft of worth, frivolous and aggravating.

13. The Revision Petition No. 3161 of 2017 is dismissed, with stern advice of caution to the Complainant for wasting the time and resourc