Insurance claims require reliance on duly substantiated surveyor reports, which can be contested by valid evidence from the insured parties.

1. These two revision petitions RP 633 of 2017 & 634 of 2017 have been filed by Minu Choudhary and M/s. Shree Devi Store against the order dated 17.10.2016 of the Jharkhand, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ˜the State Commission') passed in FA No. 20 of 2010 & FA No. 24 of 2010.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner / complainant owns two shops and the complainant has taken insurance policy from two different Insurance Companies”United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. During the currency of the policies, the incident of fire occurred on 17.11.2008 in the shops and all the stuff was gutted. The Insurance Companies paid the amount as per the surveyor report in both the cases.

3. Not satisfied with the settlement of claim by both the Insurance Companies, the complainant filed two consumer complaints, CC Nos. 37 of 2009 and 47 of 2009 before the District Consumer Forum, Bokaro (in short ˜the District Forum'). The District Forum vide its order dated 17.11.2009 allowed the complaint in complaint case No. 37 of 2009 and ordered the opposite party United India Insurance Company to pay Rs. 7.40 lacs to the complainant. Similarly vide order dated 19.11.2009, the District Forum allowed the complaint in consumer complaint No. 47 of 2009, wherein the opposite party, New India Assurance Company was ordered to pay Rs. 2,74,261 to the complainant.

4. Both the Insurance Companies filed separate appeals before the State Commission. United India Insurance Company preferred appeal bearing No. 20 of 2010 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., preferred appeal bearing No. 24 of 2010 before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following combined order dated 7.8.2012 allowing both the appeals:

7. Having heard both sides and gone through above discussed admitted documents relied upon by the complainant and respondent, we find that the learned lower Forum failed to appreciate contradictory claims of stock burnt. It also failed to assess that if the stocks were hypothecated, the payment if any should have been allowed as first charge to satisfy the loan amount of the banks. Accordingly we have no option but to set aside the impugned orders dated 17.11.2009 in complaint case No. 37/09 and 19.11.2009 in complaint case No. 47/09, being based on invalid documents.

8. At this stage we were informed by the appellants that the amounts of Rs. 1,70,000 in complaint case No. 37/09 on 27.3.2009 and Rs. 1,39,739 in complaint case No. 47/09 on 9.3.2009 have already been paid to the complainant. Therefore these two appeals are allowed with liberty to the appellant Insurance Co. to act as per law if so advised.

5. Complainant then preferred revision petition Nos. 4743 of 2012 and 4744 of 2012 against the above order of the State Commission on the ground that the order of the State Commission was a non - speaking order. This Commission vide its order dated 18.5.2016 allowed both the revision petitions and remanded the matter to the State Commission for deciding the appeals afresh considering the pleadings and evidence and to give finding on all the points raised by the parties.

6. The State Commission vide its common order dated 17.10.2016 again allowed both the appeals preferred by the two Insurance Companies and set aside the order of the District Forum.

7. Hence the present revisions petitions.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 in RP No. 633 of 2017, though none was present on behalf of respondent No. 2 during the arguments. All the parties were heard in RP No. 634 of 2017.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases stated that copies of the surveyor reports were not made available by the Insurance Companies before filing of the complaint. However, they were obtained under the RTI later on. Thus, no specific de