NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NAIM AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the revision petition. While a separate application has been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, the period of delay is not mentioned by the petitioner and the space is left blank by the petitioner in the application. In support of its request for condonation of delay, the petitioner has submitted as under:-

(2.) It is clear that the petitioner has not given any satisfactory or convincing reason in support of its application for condonation of delay, which is of 37 days as per calculation based on different dates. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay.

(3.) We have also heard counsel for the petitioner on merits and perused the record. Briefly stated, the complainant, who was an unemployed person, had taken the work of construction of Alsu-Jambla Road from 3/00 to 8/900 Kms under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. He obtained an insurance cover from the petitioner Co. for the risks for a total sum of Rs.60 lakhs for the said road and the policy was effective from 02.06.2006 to 01.06.2007. According to the complainant, he had constructed 5 Kms. of road but in the month of July 2006 due to heavy rains, a portion of this road had washed away. He, therefore, reported the damage to the petitioner Co. which deputed proforma respondent Shri N.S. Sidhu to carry out the assessment of loss. The complainant supplied necessary documents in support of his claims to the proforma respondent Shri N.S. Sidhu and he also got the loss assessed from another surveyor Shri Hans Raj. The claim of the respondent/complainant, however, was repudiated on 29.01.2007 by the petitioner Insurance Co. and hence the consumer complaint came to be filed. On appraisal of the issues and evidence adduced, the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the petitioner Co. to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs by way of compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution till payment in addition to cost of Rs.2,000/-. Appeal filed by the petitioner Co. against this order came to be dismissed by the impugned order by which the order of the District Forum was upheld by the State Commission. While accepting the complaint of the respondent against the petitioner Co., the Fora below have given their concurrent finding in favour of the respondent by well-reasoned and detailed orders. Upholding the order of the District Forum and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner Co., the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in its impugned order:-