Kerala

StateCommission

RP/38/2022

K SASIDHARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
Revision Petition No. RP/38/2022
( Date of Filing : 16 Jun 2022 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 19/04/2022 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/8/2021 of District Alappuzha)
 
1. K SASIDHARAN
KRISHNAVILASOM MATTOM NORTH MAVELIKKARA 690103
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
FIRST FLOOR SV MALL M K HEMACHANDRA ROAD KAYAMKULAM 690502
2. THE MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA
ALAKAPURI COMPLEX MICHEL JUNCTION MAVELIKKARA 690101
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER
  SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 05 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 38/2022

ORDER DATED: 05.11.2024

(Against the Order in I.A. 120/22 in C.C. 08/2021 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

 

K. Sasidharan, POA of K.P. Girijakumari, Krishnavilasam, Mattom North, Mavelikkara-690 103.

 

(By Adv. N.G. Mahesh & Adv. Sheeba Sivadasan)

  1.     

RESPONDENTS:

 

  1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, SV Mall, M.K. Hemachandra Road, Kayamkulam-690 502, represented by Manager.

(By Adv. B. Ashok Kumar)

 

  1. The Manager, Union Bank of India, Alakapuri Complex, Michel Junction, Mavelikkara-690 101, Alappuzha.

 

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

 

The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 08/2021 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (“the District Commission” for short).  The respondents are the opposite parties therein. 

2.  The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 120/2022 praying for appointing a commission to assess the loss sustained by the revision petitioner in connection with the flood of 2018.  The 1st respondent filed counter opposing the application, contending that the said application was filed only for procrastinating the case.  The District Commission, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed I.A. No. 120/2022, against which this revision petition has been filed. 

3.  Heard both sides.  Perused the records. 

4.  It is borne out from the records that the revision petitioner filed a complaint for realizing an amount of Rs. 16,80,685/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Eighty Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Five only) from the 1st respondent in connection with the repudiation of insurance claim by the 1st respondent. 

5.  The revision petitioner would contend that she is the proprietrix of M/s Candyson’s Food and Co.  The revision petitioner is doing the business of Super Stockist cum distribution of various items like Cling film, fresh wrap, aluminium foil, white oats, confectionary etc.  The revision petitioner had availed a loan from the 2nd respondent pledging the stocks and her house.  The above stocks were insured with the 1st respondent.  It is the contention of the revision petitioner that due to severe flood and calamity in Kerala during the month of August 2018, a big branch of a tree fell upon the godown of the revision petitioner.  Almost all stocks were damaged due to the flood.  Even though the revision petitioner submitted a claim to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent dismissed the same.  The revision petitioner would contend that a commission report is necessary for the proper adjudication of the complaint.  Otherwise, it is not possible to assess the loss sustained by the revision petitioner. 

6.  It appears that the complaint was filed after a period of 3½ years from the date of incident.  The complainant did not state as to why the complaint could not be filed before that.  The articles of the revision petitioner got damaged due to the flood in 2018.  The damage caused to the goods of the petitioner due to the flood should have been ascertained immediately after the incident or at least within a reasonable period after the incident.  Since the inspection was requested to be conducted after a period of 3½ years from the date of the incident, the District Commission was right in holding that no purpose would be served by conducting the inspection for the purpose of assessing the damage caused to the goods of the petitioner due to the flood after a period of 3½ years.  Presently, more than six years have elapsed since the incident. Therefore, no effective purpose would be served by conducting an inspection for assessing the damage caused to the goods of the petitioner due to the flood.  In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission.  Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission stands confirmed.

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed and the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the District Commission in I.A. No. 120/2022 stands confirmed.  . 

 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

 

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                    

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
 
[ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R]
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.