NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/533/2012

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SHAH FABRICS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. ANJALLI BANSALL

19 Oct 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 533 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 10/01/2012 in Appeal No. 2097/2011 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
201-208 Crystal Plaza,2nd floor, Opp Infinity Mall New Lnk Road,Andheri (W)
Mumbai - 400 058
Maharastra
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. SHAH FABRICS PVT. LTD.
S/o Sh Ratan Lal ji Shah, R/o Gulabpura
Bhilwara
Rajasthan
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MS. ANJALLI BANSALL
For the Respondent :
Mr.Sudeep Singh and Ms.Bhavya Sethi,
Advocates

Dated : 19 Oct 2012
ORDER

        Complainant/respondent imported two second-hand PU Sulger Looms, 153 inch, along with relevant accessories from Pakistan.  Respondent, in order to ensure its safety, purchased a marine policy for a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- from the petitioner insurance company.

        During transportation, one of the sulger machines broke.  Respondent informed the petitioner about the damage caused to the machine.  Petitioner on receipt of the information, appointed a surveyor who asked the respondent to get the machine repaired.  Respondent got the machine repaired and spent a sum of Rs.6,05,545/- and subsequently preferred the claim with the petitioner which repudiated the same on the ground that no accident or incident occurred during the transit nor there was any adverse note on GR.  

Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum, which allowed the same.  Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,45,045/- to the respondent along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim till realization.  Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, by a non-speaking order, by simply endorsing the finding recorded by the District Forum, dismissed the appeal.  Limited notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned order being non-speaking be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.  We have perused the order of the State Commission.  State Commission, without noticing the submissions made, disposed of the appeal by simply endorsing the finding recorded by the District Forum.  No reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at have been given.  Order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order.

State Commission, being the first court of appeal, was the final court of fact and was required to record reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at.  Order under revision cannot be sustained.  Limited notice issued is made absolute. Order of the State Commission, being non-speaking, is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. 

Parties, through counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.11.2012.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.