ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member.—The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 24.09.2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.07/506 in which order dated 04.05.2007 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Complaint (CC) No.586/2003 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 24.09.2007 passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission in Appeal No.07/506 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No.586/2003.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 24.01.2008. Parties filed Written Arguments on 08.11.2012 & 28.04.2022 (Petitioner) and 20.02.2017 & 21.03.2022 (Respondent) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that:—

The complainant/respondent herein obtained a Marine Cargo Inland Transit Cover Type A (Rail/Road) Open Policy from the Petitioner on 10.11.2000 for a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs to cover the Transit Risk of the AC, AC Kit in corrugated and wooden box from New Delhi to anywhere in India and Nepal, which was raised from time to time on different occasions to cover the material dispatched and the increased premium was paid as per the demand by the OP. At the request of complainant the limit of the policy was further enhanced by Rs.10.00 lacs, Rs.5.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00 lakhs on 02.02.2001, 27.02.2001 and 19.03.2001. The information regarding the risk to be covered was provided to the OP through requisite declaration forms from time to time in which there is specific mention about the value of the sum insured as well as the balance amount of the risk coverage. On 27.02.2001, the complainant dispatched material vide Invoice No.85 amounting to Rs.5,01,529/- to Pondicherry and the said material was damaged in transit and the damaged material was received by the purchaser on 09.03.2001. The information regarding the said damage was sent to the OP by the complainant and the Insurance Company appointed M/s Jaayaar Engineers as surveyor to assess the quantum of loss suffered due to damage. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.95,200/-. The complainant requested the OP to re-assess the loss as the actual loss suffered by the complainant was very high. The representative of the OP advised the complainant to call for the material at Delhi for its verification and assessment which was again done at the cost of the complainant. The complainant received 100 cartons of completely damaged material and as per information given vide letter dated 24.03.2001, the complainant suffered a loss of approx. Rs.3,77,000/- in respect of damaged A.C.Kits. Thereafter, on 04.04.2001, the OP appointed another surveyor Sq. Ldr.Kapil Mohan as Surveyor to assess the loss. The newly appointed surveyor also asked about many documents and proof regarding the said damage which were supplied by the complainant. After providing the information, despite the several requests and demands, there was complete silence from the OP. On 09.09.2002, the complainant received a letter from the OP-2 thereby repudiating the claim of the complainant, which was applied in February/March 2000. The complainant served a legal notice dated 27.10.2002 upon the OPs but in spite of service of notice, the OPs failed and neglected to do the needful. Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

5. Vide Order da