This Revision Petition challenges the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA/2333/2007 arising out of Consumer Complaint No.88/2006 decided by District Forum, Sirsa. We have heard Mr. Mukund Gupta Advocate for the Revision Petitioner/Complainant and Mr. R B Shami, Advocate for the Respondent/OP. Records as produced have also been perused.

2.       The Revision Petition has been filed with inordinate delay of 247 days. It is seen from the application seeking condonation of this delay that a certified copy of the impugned order was obtained on 9.12.2011. The order was passed on 18.3.2011. The Petitioner was not ex parte before the State Commission. Yet, there is no explanation when exactly the petitioner had come to know about it and when was the copy applied for. Also, there is no explanation whether the free copy of the impugned order was received or not. The endorsement on the impugned order shows that free copy was supplied on 7.4.2011.

3.       In this background, this Commission had called for a report from the State Commission. The report dated 27.6.2012, received in response, shows that the copy was sent to the revision petitioner/complainant by ordinary post, and not registered post. We therefore, deem it necessary and appropriate to condone the delay.

4.       On merits, it is seen that the revision petitioner/complainant is a producer of fuel brickets. The heap of mustered and paddy straw (which is a basic raw material in the production) reportedly got blown away in heavy wind storm on 9.6.2005. Rsepondent/OP, National Insurance Company, allowed the claim for Rs.35,750/-, with deduction of Rs.150/- toward reinstatement premium. Subsequently, consumer complaint No. 88 of 2006 was filed, claiming the balance of unpaid loss with compensation and cost. The District Forum allowed the claim for Rs.1,02,615/- less Rs.35,750/- already received. It held that there was no evidence that the amount was received in full and final settlement of the claim. Per contra, the State Commission has held that the complainant had received the amount in full and final settlement. Therefore, he was not entitled to any further claim. Accordingly, appeal filed by the National Insurance Coy, was allowed and the complaint dismissed. 

5.       We have perused the relevant acknowledgement for Rs.35600/- (35750-150) paid to the petitioner on 27.1.2006. We have also perused the letter addressed by the Petitioner/complainant to the Divisional Manager of OP insurance co, expressing satisfaction with the storm loss assessment of Rs.35,750/- by the Surveyor. Both documents carry the same signature, as partner of the complainant firm.

6.       The revision petition challenges the finding of the State Commission on the ground that—

“Bare perusal of the satisfactory letter, annexure P-3, on the basis of which State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana has allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company would show that the satisfactory letter alleged to have been issued by the Petitioner is dated 21.7.2005 wherein it has been stated that the Complainant/Petitioner is satisfied with the storm loss assessed to the tune of Rs.35,750/- as assessed by surveyor N.K.Gupta. N.K.Gupta, surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.35,750/- vide its report dated 5.12.2005 i.e. five months after the satisfactory letter.  It is no possible either for the Complainant/Petitioner or for the Insurance Company to predict five months earlier that surveyor so appointed by the Insurance Company will assess the loss to the tune of Rs.35,750/- whereas the Complainant/Petitioner has claimed Rs.1,06,215/- rather it shows that the Insurance Company who has taken the signatures of the Complainant/Petitioner on certain blank papers from the Petitioner has misused the documents and filled same with their own handwriting by misrepresenting by filling up the amount which was assessed by the surveyor five months after issuance of the satisfactory letter.”

7.       Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner also argued vehemently that satisfaction of the complainant months before the report of the Surveyor, was an impossibility. We have perused this report of 5.12.2005. It clearly states that—

“Undersigned visited and inspected the damaged stocks of Mustard Straw, the heap of Mustard Straw was badly effected and the straw flew away upto 250 meter distance.  Even after one and half month of storm, the straw was found in a long distance of 200 meter from the heap place.  The straw was not in a position to recollect.  The total stock of Mustard Straw was found 6017 Qtl. and the stock value was Rs.513486/-.  The average rate of mustard straw comes to 85/30 per Qtl. The Insured demanded for 20% loss in the stocks i.e. app. Rs.102697/-.  The loss position was discussed in details and assessed for 610 Qtl. of total wt: and rate was negotiated with the insured and finally consider for 75/- per qtl.”                               

8.       From the above, it is clear that report of the Surveyor is based on the agreement reached with the complainant. In fact, it also contains a clear computation of how the agreed figure of Rs.35,750/- was arrived at. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner can find no legs to stand on. Accordingly, the revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. No orders as to costs.