ORAL ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 26/05/2005 passed in consumer complaint no.378/2004, Rajesh Shankar Kambale v/s. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.; passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur. It is the case in respect of alleged deficiency in service on the part of M/s.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (‘Insurance Company’ in short) for arbitrarily sanctioning only part of the claim to the extent of `5000/- against the loss caused due to fire, which according to the complainant- Rajesh Shankar Kambale (herein after referred as the ‘complainant’) was of `8,00,000/-. The claim of the complainant was allowed directing Insurance Company to pay compensation to the extent of loss of `8,00,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby opponent, Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. of Divisional office, Solapur (hereinafter referred as ‘appellant’) has preferred this appeal.
We heard both the parties at length. Ultimately, when it comes to the evidence led by the parties, as per section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is submitted on behalf of the complainant (respondent in this appeal) that inadvertently, the provisions of section 13(4) were overlooked and, therefore, it would be just and proper to give complainant an opportunity to establish his case about the extent of loss suffered, by leading appropriate evidence. In the instant case, as revealed from the record, though the service provider is the Insurance Company, complaint is filed against its one of its officials, namely, Manager, Divisional office, Solapur i.e.appellant. Consumer complaint perhaps is contested by the Insurance Company. Whatever it may be, but if it is a case of mis-description, it is for the complainant to think about it and to take the remedial steps to correct the same.
The surveyor whose affidavit is on record and on which the Insurance Company relied in partly sanctioning the claim to the extent of `5,000/- as valued by the surveyor, they have also taken a statement of wife of the complainant who was present at the time of incident recording the stock which was burnt. According to complainant, his wife being an illiterate lady, did not understand the statement given by her. There is dispute as to whether burnt stock was covered under the insurance claim or not. Panchanama on which Insurance company relied is not tendered in evidence and so the other material on the basis of which the surveyor came to the conclusion of a particular nature. Panchanama by police is on record and the complainant wants to rely on the panchanama of Tahsildar. Both these documents are not tendered in evidence. Therefore, appellant also conceded to the request made on behalf of the respondent to give an opportunity to lead the evidence as per the law.
For the reasons stated above, we find that it would be just and proper to accept the submissions of both the parties and to remand the matter back to the forum for denovo trial from the stage of recording of evidence as per the provisions of section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 26/05/2005 is set aside.
Matter is remanded back to the forum for denovo trial from the stage of recording evidence u/sec.13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
After the evidence is tendered as aforesaid, the forum shall hear both the parties and settle the dispute according to law.
Hearing of the consumer complaint be expedited.
Both the parties are directed to remain present before the forum on 25/07/2012.
In the given circumstance both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties and to the forum.
Pronounced on 18th June, 2012.
