AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE petitioners herein were opposite parties 1 and 2, respectively, before the District Forum and the respondents are the complainants. THE complainants are engaged in the work of making alloys steel casting. THEy had taken an insurance policy for the period from 16.01.1989 to 15.01.1990 from the opposite parties. Under the policy, the machines of the complainants were insured for Rs. 32 lakh and the annual premium payable was Rs.44,197/-. In the insurance policy, a copy of which is placed on record, all risks related to machines were insured. During the policy period, the incident of breakdown of the machinery took place on 29.11.1989 thereby causing loss to the complainants. This loss was intimated by the complainants to the opposite parties, upon which the opposite parties got the loss assessed through a Surveyor. THE Surveyor went to the spot of accident and found that the damage had taken place and was covered under the insurance policy. THE complainants got the damage machine repaired on which they spent an amount of Rs.32,105/-. All the details of expenditure were given by the complainants to the opposite parties while lodging their claim with the opposite parties. When there was no response despite requests and reminders, the complainants filed a complaint with the District Forum and in which they demanded the sum of Rs.32,105/- with @25% interest.
ON being noticed, the opposite parties filed a reply in which they accepted the insurance and also accepted the appointment of Surveyor but submitted that on the basis of Surveyor?s report, the claim of the complainants had finally been disposed of according to the terms of the policy and hence the complaint is not admissible and the amount demanded is exaggerated. It was also submitted that the opposite parties were always ready to pay the correct and reasonable claim and they have already paid the claim due and admissible to the complainants. The opposite parties also denied any negligence or deficiency in service or delay on their part in the disposal of the claim. Finally, it was contended by the opposite parties that the dispute in question was required to be settled through an arbitration and hence cannot be decided by the District Forum. After hearing the parties and assessing the evidence produced by them before it, the District Forum rejected the plea of the opposite parties regarding its jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It also did not find force in the submission of the opposite parties that the claim had already been decided because no such information was either given to the complainants or any letter in this regard was placed on record by the opposite parties before the District Forum. In fact, even the Surveyor?s report on the basis of which the opposite parties alleged to have decided the claim had also not been placed on record. As regards the allegation of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the District Forum vide its order dated 18.03.1993 accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.32,105/- with interest @12% per annum from 29.11.1989 till the date of payment. The District Forum has recorded the following reasons in support of its decision:- "So far as the question of facts, it is undisputed that the complainant got his machines insured with OP. It is also undisputed that the intimation of damage to Crucible (Furnace) was given to OP. The appointment of surveyor is also undisputed. OPs have accepted that surveyor submitted his report but this was not placed on record, nor the copy of decision was brought on record by which we could decided that the claim of the complainant has been settled. Complainant has filed document 9/7 in support of his claim according to which Rs.32,105/- was spent in repair of crucible, in rebuttal of which OP has not produced any document. Mere statement that the claim is exaggerated by Complainant is not acceptable, that no amount was spent in repair of Crucible (Furnace). During arguments it was stated that Electotherm is not covered by policy. The complainant informed that Electrotherm is a Company which manufactures crucibles and this part of machine is also covered under the policy. In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.32,105/- spent in repair of damaged machine."
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the opposite parties challenged the same by filing an appeal before the U. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ?the State Commission?). The State Commission dismissed the appeal but modified the order of the District Forum by reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 6 % per annum vide its order dated 25.07.2006. The present revision petition has been filed by the opposite parties to challenge the impugned order of the State Commission.
WE have heard Mr. S. M. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Balram Sahni, Auth. Rep. on behalf of the respondent. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission had ignored the survey report and repudiation letter. Another contention raised by learned counsel is that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite parties are not to be held liable for loss or damage to crucibles and refractory linings. It is, therefore, pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order suffers from factual inaccuracies resulting in infirmities creeping into the impugned order and hence the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the representative of the respondent has drawn our attention to the observation made by the District Forum to the effect that neither the service report nor any letter showing the basis of settlement of the claim were produced by the opposite parties before the District Forum. On the other hand, the attached list to the Machinery Insurance Policy in question, a copy of which is placed on record at page 26-27, clearly shows that the crucible is also covered in the items of machinery under the policy. As regards the breakdown of the machinery, the representative pointed out that this fact has been duly certified by the Inspector of Central Excise. There is, therefore, no substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, we find that the opposite parties failed to produce the survey report and the basis of the alleged settlement of the claim before the District Forum. Even then, when a copy of the survey report was brought to the notice of the State Commission, the State Commission has considered the same in its impugned order while upholding the order of the District Forum and dismissing the appeal. Para 2 of the survey report at page 37 shows that the breakdown of the machinery in question has already been duly entered in the Daily Stock Account Register with proper certification by the Inspector of Central Excise vide which "the production was held up on 29.11.1980 on account of fault in cooling". In other words, it is established that the documents being relied upon by the petitioners have been duly considered by the State Commission and both the fora below have returned their concurrent findings of fact in favour of the complainants/respondents while rejecting the defence of the petitioners. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the revision petition which would call for our interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition, therefore, is liable for dismissal and the same is dismissed accordingly with the parties bearing their own costs.