NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3188/2011

BABU LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CITY) DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. HIMANSHU GUPTA

12 Jan 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3188 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 04/04/2011 in Appeal No. 1522/2007 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. BABU LAL
Regional Office, LIC building,2nd Floor, Jagadhri Road,
Ambala
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CITY) DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.
S/o Sh Umrao Singh,C/o Bengal Talio, Bajaja Bazar, Narnaul, tehsil Narnaul
Mahendargarh
Haryana
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. HIMANSHU GUPTA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 12 Jan 2012
ORDER

        Petitioner is running a tailor shop.  He took insurance of Rs.50,000/-.  On 3.2.2003, fire took place, in which, allegedly readymade garments worth Rs.6 lakh were destroyed.  Petitioner filed the complaint against the insurance company as well as Respondents No.1-3, who had provided the electric connection to the petitioner.  OP No.4 – the bank, was also impleaded as a party as the petitioner had taken loan from the bank.  Petitioner lodged claim with the insurance company, which was repudiated.  Being aggrieved, petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum.

        District Forum directed the insurance company - respondent No.5 herein to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of fire along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,100/- as costs.

        Being aggrieved, the insurance company filed appeal before the State Commission, which has set aside the order of the District Forum by observing thus :

“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the case file thoroughly.  Undisputed facts are that shop of the complainant was insured by OP NO.5 appellant where a fire took place on 3.2.2003.  No proof of loss was produced before the learned District Forum.  The learned District Forum had hypothetically calculated loss on the basis that since she was insured for 50,000/- therefore, the District Forum allowed the claim of Rs.50,000/-.  During the course of appeal some photographs were placed on the file but they cannot substitute as proof of loss as they do not connect that these photographs related to the shop in question.  Therefore the finding appears to be only on the basis of mere surmises.  Therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside.  The appeal is allowed, complaint stands dismissed.”

 

        State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to prove the loss.  Onus to prove the loss was on the petitioner.  Counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to prove the loss of the goods lying in the shop.

        We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
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.