Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the District Forum, Alwar in complaint case No. 502 of 2002 and thereafter by the State Commission in appeal No. 1358 of 2005, the insurance company has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for setting aside the said findings and orders. The District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant on cash loss basis along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 09.7.2002. 2. Notice was issued to the respondent but could not be served in the ordinary way and therefore, it was served through publication by publishing a proclamation in the name of respondent in the 21st August, 2009 Edition of the Times of India and 21st August, 2009 of the Rajasthan Patrika. Despite this substituted service, the respondent remained un-represented on record. 3. We have heard the counsel/authorized representative of the petitioner-insurance company and have considered his submissions. He would assail the impugned order passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that the same are not based on the correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and material brought on record and is also not in consonance with the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Courts. In this connection, his submission is that the District Forum had misread/misinterpreted the defense put forth by the opposite party-petitioner in response to the complaint by treating that the insurance company had agreed to settle the claim of the complainant at a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. He has invited our attention to para-7 of the written version filed before the District Forum in Hindi Language and submits that the insurance company never agreed to settle the claim of the complainant in the sum of Rs. 70,000/-. We have carefully considered the submissions and we must reject the same because on reading of the said paragraph, we have no manner of doubt that the petitioner-insurance company had come out with the plea that the complainant had agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 70,000/- on cash loss basis but due to other factors, which were disclosed later i.e. the complainant made a fraudulent claim on the basis of certain fake documents in relation to goods receipts, he has disentitled himself for the insurance claim under the policy. 4. On consideration of the material brought on record and in particular the survey report dated 11.7.2002 prepared by Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, there is no escape from the conclusion that the said surveyor had assessed the net loss at Rs. 71,271/- and recommended to the insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant insured in the sum of Rs. 70,000/- on cash loss mode of assessment which was to be economical to the insurer, the insured having given his consent for settling the claim to the above extent. That being the position, we see no earthly reason why the insurance company could not have settled the claimant’s case atleast at Rs. 70,000/-. 5. The order passed by the District Forum appears to be based on correct appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record. The State Commission rightly dismissed the appeal. We see no illegality, material irregularity; much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. |
