Delay of 5 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Petitioner/complainant had taken insurance policy for the wooden furniture shop being run by him.  A fire alleged to have broke out in the night of 10.4.2002 in the shop premises of the complainant causing a loss of Rs.6 Lacs.  It is stated in the complaint that he lodged the FIR with the police on 11.4.2002 and informed the Central Bank of India as well as the Insurance Company on the same date.  Thereafter, he submitted an application on 18.5.2002 and another on 18.6.2002 requesting the insurance company to pay the compensation, but the insurer did not take any notice.  Aggrieved by this, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          Respondent insurance company, on being served, took the objection that the petitioner had not informed them about the fire immediately; the applications dated 18.5.2002 and 18.6.2002 allegedly written by the petitioner were not received; that the insurance company got the information only on receipt of a legal notice in April, 2005 to which a suitable response was sent; that the complaint was barred by limitation.

          District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 10.1.2007 directing the insurance company to pay Rs.3,60,000/- as 60%     of the insured amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

          Being aggrieved, respondent insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide impugned order has reversed the order passed by the District Forum and held that the complaint was barred by limitation.

          Admittedly, the complaint was filed in the year 2005 whereas the cause of action had arisen to the petitioner on 11.4.2002.  Prima facie the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation.  The plea taken by the petitioner that he had informed the insurance company immediately after the occurrence and filed applications on 18.5.2002 and 18.6.2002, was rejected by holding thus:

“4.     We find that Insurance Company took various pleas regarding limitation, non-receipt of any information about the incident from the complainant or Bank and Insurance Company also examined two witnesses before the learned District Forum to the effect that no information of the alleged fire was either given by post or through any letter to the Insurance Company and there was no signature of the Branch Manager or any officer of the Insurance Company on petition dated 18.5.02 and 18.6.2002.  Witness 1 the Administrative Officer also stated that in fact the so called petition bears an initial of receipt dated 17.4.05 which was neither of Branch Manager nor any official of office.  We also find that the appellant has filed a petition (Annexure G) that on Annexure 7/A filed by complainant, the date originally given was 17.4.05 which was changed by over-writing as 17.4.02 and prayer was made for exert examination on which no consideration was given by learned District Forum.  On behalf of Insurance Company a ruling of Hon’ble National Commission reported in III (2009) CPJ 91 (National Commission) has been filed that where a report was said to be given by any Doctor whose affidavit was not filed during evidence the acceptance of report of doctor was held improper and the order of learned State Commission was set aside.

5.      We find that complainant gave no evidence as to who were those persons who signed endorsement of receipts of letter dated 18.5.2002 and 18.6.2002, though evidence of rebuttal was given by Insurance Company.  there was also no proof given about actual dispatch of any letter under certificate or posting to the Insurance Company.  Sending a letter Under Certificate of posting carriers no inference with it that actually the letter was dispatched.  Hence in the light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove that information of incident was given to Insurance Company as stipulated in the policy bond of the Insurance or son thereafter.  Hence we are of the view that no information was given to the Insurance Company deliberately that the surveyor or investigator could not check the reality of burning of furniture etc. worth Rs.6,00,000/-.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Otherwise also, the finding recorded by the State Commission on this point is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.