ORDER

1.       None appears for the Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was served on 07.11.2023 for 21.12.2023.  Respondent No.2 is absent even today. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 proceeded ex-parte.

2.       Heard proxy counsel for the Petitioner, who appeared with written authority from the main counsel for the Petitioner, and learned counsel for the Respondent No.1.

3.       In this case, the petitioner has taken two insurance policies, first from 27.05.2004 to 26.05.2005 for  Rs.3.45 lakh and second for additional amount from 12.08.2004 to 11.08.2005 for Rs. 1.5  lakh.  Therefore, as on the date of incident the petitioner was having a valid policy covering loss upto 4.7 lakh.  The case of the petitioner is that on the date of theft goods worth Rs.4.2 lakh were stolen.  The District Commission vide order dated 28.08.2008, partially allowed the claim for Rs.2.50 lakh.  The Respondent insurance company went in appeal before the state commission who modified the order of the district commission and directed the opposite party- insurance company to pay Rs.57872/- with interest @ 9 % from the date of filing the complaint along with compensation Rs.11,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. 

4.       In this case, the first surveyor appointed by insurance company have considered the claim of the Complainant at length, not finding some bills/ claims reliable, recommended the claim for Rs.57,872/- only. At the request of complainant, the claim was reassessed from another surveyor who also recommended the same amount i.e. Rs.57,872/-.  The petitioner is relying on the stock statement as on 08.01.2005, as per which the stock of Rs. 4.92 lakh is there just prior to date of theft.  However, there is no document to record on show whether any panchnama was prepared post theft listing the balance stock/ items after the theft.

5.       It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khatema Fibres Ltd. vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II (2021) 9 S.C.R.268 that “A Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with an allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject the surveyor’s report to forensic examination of its anatomy, just as a civil court could do. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop.”  In this case both the surveyors after detailed verification, enquiries and assessment have assessed the lost at Rs.57,872/-.

6.       As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”   

7.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contention of the parties.  The state commission has given well-reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings.  Hence, the order of the state commission is upheld. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

8.       Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.

..........................