Aparna Cloth House vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, it is observed from the scrutiny sheet submitted by the Registry that there is a delay of 36 days in filing the present revision petition. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, the delay is of 38 days in filing but the circumstances in which the delay was caused have been narrated in detail in the application. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned and the revision petition is considered on merits.

BRIEFLY stated, the factual matrix of this case are that the complainant/petitioner, namely, M/s Aparna Cloth House are engaged in cloth business. They got their goods insured with the OP Insurance Co. for the period from 31.5.1995 to 30.05.1996. The insured goods consisted of furniture, fitting, fixture etc., and the sum insured was Rs.3 lakh. On 6.6.1995, the son of the complainant expired. According to the complainant, the shop was not opened and thereafter on opening the shop on 20.8.1995, it was found that a theft had taken place and goods worth Rs.2,92,856/- had been stolen. The complainant submitted information at the police station but FIR was not registered whereupon the complainant got the order passed from the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for registration of FIR and thereafter the police in compliance of court order, registered the FIR. As such, the report of the incident, which occurred on 20.8.1995 would be registered on 28.10.1995. The surveyor after investigation repudiated the insurance claim holding the incident as concocted. According to the complainant, the police had not conducted investigation properly. The complainant eventually lodged the complaint before the District Forum. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Even though an appeal was filed by the complainant before the State Commission, the same did not find favour with the State Commission which dismissed it while upholding the order of the District Forum and hence the present revision petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the orders of fora below. Both the fora below by their concurrent finding of facts have reached the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the incident of theft as genuine. It is clear from their orders that before reaching such conclusion they have duly considered the evidence adduced by the complainant and the Insurance Co. including the report of the surveyor and the FIR. In view of this, the judgment of the National Commission in the case of Sutlej Textile and Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank [1 (2010) CPJ 312 (NC)] relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the present case, the consumer fora have actually considered the consumer complaint but dismissed it based on the material before them and hence no fault could be found with the impugned order. There being no other irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, we are unable to give any relief to the petitioner while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs.