On the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has modified the order of the District Forum without recording any reason whatsoever, Notice was issued, in response to which, Shri Samir Tandon has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

Complainant/respondent had insured his production/manufacturing unit with the petitioner insurance company for a sum of Rs.16,50,000/-.  Fire broke out, which damaged the machinery, building, etc.  Insurance company sent a cheque in the sum of Rs.6,30,000/-.  Being not satisfied with the amount disbursed, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum claiming the remaining amount of Rs.6,72,997/-.  District Forum allowed the complaint.  Both the petitioner as well as the respondent filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  State Commission held that the complainant was entitled to get Rs.9,47,000/-.  After deducting the amount already paid, the respondent was entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.3,06,240/-.  Being aggrieved, insurance company has filed the present Revision Petition.

State Commission has not recorded any reason whatsoever to increase the amount of compensation to Rs.9,47,000/-.  The only reason recorded by the State Commission to increase the amount of compensation reads thus :

“Heard both the parties and examined the record.  Chartered Accountant is also present today from the side of the insurance company.  Report of the surveyor examined in presence of the parties and their counsels and chartered accountant.  Looking to all the circumstances this is found that the complainant was entitled to get Rs.9,47,000/-, in which rs.6,40,760/- has already been paid to the complainant and Rs.3,06,240/- remained balance.  As the complainant had granted Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, therefore, it is not reasonable to grant any interest on this amount.”

Order passed by the State Commission is cryptic and almost non-speaking.  State Commission, in a judgement of reversal in the First Appeal, should have recorded its reasons for taking a view other than what was taken by the District Forum. 

Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the parties.

Parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29^th September 2009. 

Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.