1.   This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 23.05.2014 of the State Commission in appeal no. 213 of 2013 arising out of the Order dated 08.07.2013 of the District Commission in complaint no. 366 of 2011.

2.   We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant (the petitioner herein) and the insurance co. (the respondents no.1 and no. 2 herein) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 08.07.2013 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 23.05.2014 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.   The dispute relates to an insurance claim arising out of an event of fire in the insured premises (which was an atta chakki). The premises were insured for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The District Commission assessed the loss at “more than” Rs. 10,00,000/-. It directed the insurance co. to pay the assured sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint along with Rs. 5,000/- as damages and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation. The State Commission assessed the loss at Rs. 1,24,500/-. It accordingly directed the insurance co. to pay the said sum to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. It did not interfere with the damages and cost of litigation as awarded by the District Commission.  

4.     We see that the insurance co. in repudiating the claim vide its letter dated 15.10.2011 had also enumerated succinctly therein the material on the basis of which it took its decision. The said letter is reproduced below:

WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE WE WISH TO INFORM YOU THAT AS PER OUR REGISTERED LETTERS DT. 16.6.2011, 1.7.2011 AND 02.08.2011, THE SURVEY REPORTS, THE INVESTIGATION REPORTS OF MR D.P. SHARMA, MR. KAMLESH CHANDHA, THE REASSESSMENT REPORT OF SHRI SITA RAM SHARMA I/R OF ALLEGED TOTAL LOSS BUILDING, THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER RTI FROM ELECTRICITY DEPTT., FROM FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, AND FROM EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPTT AND THE CLAIM PAPERS SUBMITTED BY YOU IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM, THE EVASIVE REPLIES SUBMITTED TO OUR ABOVE LETTERS, THE FALSE CERTICATION PRODUCED FROM THE ARCHITECT, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO REPUDIATE YOUR ABOVE CLAIM. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND, YOUR ABOVE CLAIM IS HEREBY REPUDIATED AND IS BEING FILED AS NO CLAIM WICH KINDLY NOTE.

A perusal of the District Commission’s Order shows that it has erred on the side of credulity, if not indulgence, in assessing the loss at “more than” Rs. 10,00,000/, and awarding the total sum assured i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/-. It appears to have scarcely paid any heed to the whole spectrum of material available on record.

In this respect the State Commission has rightly observed that “- - - A bare reading of the order of the learned District Forum shows that the evidence adduced by the parties has not been scrutinized while working out the money payable on account of insurance claim and the order has been passed for payment of the entire sum assured just with the observation that the plea taken by the appellant that the claim is bogus is contrary to the report of the Preliminary Surveyor who reported that incident of the fire had taken place and the Patwari & Pradhan of the Panchayat gave reports that the loss sustained by the respondent-complainant was worth more than Rs. 10.00 lacs. - - - ”

We find that the State Commission has then endeavoured to make a well-reasoned appraisal of the evidence and has made a fair assessment of the loss at Rs.1,24,500/-. It has vetted the entire material in order to arrive at a judicious and discrete finding while making the assessment of the loss. The co-relation between the actual output or production in the unit and the quantum of electricity consumption has been taken into account. The topography of the area and site used for the purpose of doing business has also been considered. The availability of the relevant vouchers or bills in order to ascertain the level or extent of business activities that could have possibly taken place have been taken into consideration. All relevant and material reports have been duly taken note of. That the State Commission has weighed the evidence aptly and fairly is quite apparent from a perusal of paragraphs 10 to 19 of its Order. As such we notice no jurisdictional error or material irregularity or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned in its Order.

          The complainant appears to have no good ground to be dissatisfied with the State Commission’s Order and appears to be asking for too much by insisting that the perfunctory and casual Order of the District Forum, whereby the total sum assured has been awarded, be restored.

5.  The revision being bereft of worth stands dismissed.  

6.  The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.