KISSAN TRACTOR Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 25.08.2010, the revision petition was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are as under:-

(2.) (i) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission ) in appeal no. 765 of 2004. By the said order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant / appellant / petitioner against the order dated 11.05.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, the District Forum ). By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

(3.) We have heard Mr. K. R. Pamei and Mr. P.K. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent respectively and considered the documents brought on record. It may be noted at the outset that both the Fora below have considered in detail the various contentions of the complainant in support of its insurance claim and the oral evidence of various persons concerned, as recorded by the surveyors. On the basis of analysis and appreciation of the facts of the case, both the Fora below have come to the concurrent finding that the complainant was unable to establish that the tractor in question was stolen, while on its journey from Dosanjhkhurd to Batala, on 23.05.2000 and not on 13.05.2000. This is a finding of fact with which we have no reason whatsoever to differ. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought impress upon us the statement of one of the employees of the manufacturer at the stockyard to point out the reasons for the difference between the date of issuance of the delivery-cum-dispatch challan and the actual date of transport of the tractor from out of the stockyard. However, the State Commission has, inter alia, considered this point also in arriving at its conclusion. The State Commission has, in addition, gone into the discrepancies in the reports of the investigators regarding the date of dispatch / theft of the tractor. The State Commission has further examined the statements demonstrating discrepancies even in the date of theft mentioned in FIR which was registered at Police Station, Subhanpur, District Kapurthala. It has been also subsequently mentioned in the impugned order that out of the batch of 80 tractors, 79 tractors were actually dispatched on 13.05.2000; only the tractor, in question, was dispatched, according to the petitioner on 23.05.2000 for some "technical / commercial reasons", without explaining as to what the said reasons were.