MINU CHOUDHARY vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Both revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ''the

State Commission'') in Appeal No. 20/2010 & 24/2010 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Minu Choudhary & Anr. & M/s. Shree Devi Stores Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeals, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Minu Choudhary/petitioner is proprietor of shop working in the name of M/s. Shree Devi Stores got it insured from OP No. 1/ Respondent No. 1 by two separate policies and complainant obtained cash credit facility from different OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2. Shop of complainant was burnt in the night of 17.11.2008 during subsistence of insurance policy due to electrical short circuit, goods of Rs.9,38,000/- in Complaint No. 37/09 and goods of Rs.4,98,278/- in Complaint No. 47/09 were burnt. Complainant intimated to OP and submitted claim to OP and OP No. 1 deposited in complainant''s account Rs.1,70,000/- in Complaint No. 37/09 and Rs. 1,30,739/- in Complaint No. 47/09 without consent of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed two complaints before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaints, admitted issuance of policy and also admitted assessment of loss and payment made by them to complainant. It was further pleaded that list of articles burnt in fire are same and similar in both the cases and also raised objection regarding issuance of two policies on the same premises. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 also resisted complaint and denied any deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.7,40,000/- in Complaint No. 37/09 and Rs. 2,74,261/- in Complaint No. 47/09. OP No. 1 filed appeals before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeals and dismissed complaints against which, these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

As there is delay of only 11 days in filing both the revision petitions, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeals without any reason by non-speaking order; hence, appeals be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide appeals by speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitions be dismissed.

Finding of learned State Commission runs as under:

"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 17.11.09 in complaint case no. 37/09 and 19.11.09 in complaint case no. 47/09, being based on invalid documents.

At this stage we were informed by the appellants that the amounts of Rs.1,70,000/- in complaint case no. 37/09 on 27.3.09 and Rs.1,39,739/- in complaint case no. 47/09 on 9.3.09 have already been paid to the complainant. Therefore these two appeals are dismissed with liberty to the appellant Insurance Co. to act as per law if so advised.

Learned State Commission after mentioning all the facts of the complaint and grounds of memo of appeal has not discussed on what ground they arrive to a conclusion that contradictory claim of burnt stocks were filed by complainant. Impugned order is non-speaking order which does not contain any discussion of evidence and reasons for setting aside District Forum''s order and in such circumstances; impugned order is liable to set aside.

Hon''ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 - HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: "1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:

''We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN - appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal''.

We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to

dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission".

In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the parties and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the parties, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the parties. We would like to observe that it is not clear why complainant obtained two insurance policy - one in his own name and one in his shop''s name pertaining to same stock.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petitions are to be allowed and matters are to be remanded back to learned State Commission.

Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed and impugned order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 20/2010 & 24/2010 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Minu Choudhary & Anr. & M/s. Shree Devi Stores Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. are set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeals afresh by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 11.07.2016.