ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.63/2008.

2. Along with the Revision, an application for condonation of delay of 30 days has also been filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the Revision Petition is condoned and the Application is allowed.

3. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a dealer in Paints since 30.11.1992. The Complainant was having a C/C limit of Rs.6,00,000/- from Respondent No.4 - Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Loharu Road, Bhiwani since 1997. The insurance of the shop and godown were required as per the contract between them and the Bank used to pay Respondent Nos.1 & 2/Insurance Company premium on behalf of the Complainant duly debiting the account of the Complainant. Initially the shop was taken on 30.11.1992, whereas the godown was taken on rent much later. A fire broke out in the shop of the Complainant on the intervening night of 6th & 7th April, 2002 at about 4.00 a.m. The goods of the Complainant were destroyed in the fire causing loss of Rs.8,90,925/-. Immediately, the Complainant reported the matter to the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 as well as to Respondent No.4. Surveyor Sh. S.P. Goyal was appointed who visited the shop of the Complainant on 07.04.2002. Though the Complainant supplied all the necessary information to Respondent No.2., on 11.02.2003 the claim was repudiated on the ground that the Complainant was not running an independent shop and it was part and parcel of another shop which was being run by his father Shri Virender Kumar. According to the Insurance Company, the Complainant was not having counter and another shop was being run jointly with his father and only for record purposes of Sales Tax, two premises were shown. Insurance Company/Respondent rejected the claim on the premise that fire took place in the godown of the shop which was being run jointly by the Complainant and his father. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the Claim, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.248 of 2003 with the District Forum with following prayer:-

“(a) Compensation to the tune of Rs.8,90,925/- for the loss goods in fire.

(b) The loss of earning of the Complainant. If godown is not got Insured by the Bank then in that case, if the Insurance Company is not held responsible then Bank should be held responsible for that.

(c) That the interest which the Bank is claiming on the loan amount, after the day of fire should be paid by the Insurance Company, because the just claim of the Complainant has been rejected by the Insurance Company.

(d) Rs.1,00,000/- being the damages suffered by the Complainant due to mental agony, harassment etc.

(e) Cost of these proceedings.

(f) Any other relief to the which the Complainant is found entitled may also be granted to the Complainant.”

4. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 raised the preliminary objection on maintainability of the Complaint stating that the matter cannot be decided under summary proceedings before the Consumer Court.

5. On merits it was stated that the case of the Complaint was thoroughly considered in all aspects and being a prudent trustee of the Public Fund, the claim was repudiated in good faith and there was no deficiency in service. Further, the claim of the Complainant was not matching with the estimate filed with the Police. No fire had taken place in the shop and actually it took place in the godown of the Complainant which was not insured. The shop insured by the Complainant was not having the capacity to store the goods described in the Complaint. The early filing of Sales Tax Return for the quarter ending 31.03.2002 also created a doubt because a businessman al