Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th June, 2003 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in Appeal No. 1004 of 2001, the original complainant has preferred this revision petition. The State Commission while allowing appeal has set aside the order passed by a District Forum and dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost. Admitted facts in the case are as under: Petitioner had taken following three insurance policies S. No. | Date | From | To | Policy No. | Amount | 1. | 22.04.1996 | 22.04.1996 | 21.05.1996 | 098382 | 15 lakhs | 2. | 12.03.1996 | 12.03.1996 | 11.05.1996 | 087754 | 10 lakhs | 3. | 01.12.1995 | 01.12.1995 | 30.04.1996 | 1145110009933 | 08 lakhs |
There is no dispute that there was a fire on 25th April, 1996 and the petitioner suffered loss. He made a claim before the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company appointed surveyors, who assessed the loss as under: “VALUATION 1719.15 Q. of DCH32 Kapas @ Rs.2120.67 per Q Rs.36,46,265.58 Sum Insured Rs.33,00,000.00 Under Insurance Rs. 3,46,265.58 i.e. by 9.50% LOSS 1719.15 Q Of DCH 32 variety @2120.97 Rs.36,46,265.58 per Q. damaged due to fire Loss: Value of Salvage Rs.20,05,446.07 ---------------------- Insured’s loss before application of under Rs.16,40,819.51 Insurance and excess Less: Insured’s own share of loss due to Rs. 1,55,819.51 under insurance of Rs.3,46,265.58 ---------------------- Insured’s loss before excess Rs.14,85,000.00 Less : Excess Rs. 2,500.00 ---------------------- Net Adjusted Loss under the Policies Rs.14,82,500.00 ----------------------- REMARKS
1. The above assessment has been agreed to by the Insured. 2. All terms and conditions of the policies were observed. 3. No Breach of Warranties were observed. 4. The cause of the fire as assessed is one which is specifically covered under the policies and does not fall under any exclusions.” Despite this, assessment the Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs.11,25,784/- on 15th April, 1997 to the petitioner. Petitioner approached the District Forum by filing complaint No. 19 of 1998. By the order dated 15th June, 2001 the complaint was allowed with directions to the Insurance Company to pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,60,952/- with interest @ 9.5 % per annum from 15th June, 2001 on the amount of Rs.3,60,952/- and cost of Rs. 1000/-. Appeal was allowed by the State Commission on the grounds that initially in the complaint, the complainant had prayed that he was entitled to Rs.6,35,952/- and the District Forum had thus no pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. District Forum had not taken into consideration that the sum insured was Rs. 33 lakh while the stock on the day of occurrence was Rs.36,46,265/- and thus condition No. 10 providing average clause was applicable. In our view, State Commission has obviously, committed error in passing the impugned order. Firstly, it has not referred to the operative portion of the surveyor’s report. The surveyor in his report has specifically applied the average clause and deducted a sum of Rs.1,55,819.51 towards under insurance. State Commission has also materially erred in observing that the District Forum ought to have followed the principle of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. CPC is not applicable to the Consumer Fora. Moreover the complainant had already reduced his claim to Rs.5 lakhs, and, the District Forum was having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the said dispute. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored and confirmed. Insurance Company shall pay the said amount of Rs.3,61,000/- (rounded off) with interest @ 9.5% per annum from 3rd January, 1997 i.e., (three months after the date of submissions of the survey report ). No order as to costs.
......................JM.B. SHAHPRESIDENT
......................JK.S. GUPTAMEMBER | | 
