ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. P G CLOTHING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three Revision Petitioners are respectively the regional office, branch office and the head office of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. THE Revision Petition seeks to challenge the order of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No.500/2006. While all three Revision Petitioners were parties before the State Commission and the District Forum, R.P No.1 and R.P. No.3 had chosen not to present their case before the District Forum. THE District Forum had therefore proceeded ex-parte against these two.

(2.) THE facts of this case in brief are that the Complainant M/s. P.G. Clothing, was a garment making unit in Chennai, which worked on job-work basis for other garments makers, in addition to working for itself. On 12.10.2001 all the stocks in the unit, including finished goods, raw material and plant and machinery, had got destroyed in a fire accident.

(3.) WE have perused the records of the case and heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioners. The main ground is that the determination of the cause of fire was necessary before deciding the claim under the policy. But, the revision petition does not explain, how. However, this question has been examined at length, by both the fora below, and rejected. The State Commission has noted that the surveyor s report accepts that it was a case of fire accident. Therefore, the Commission agreed with the District Forum that the cause of fire was not essential for determination of the quantum of loss or liability of the insurer. WE would also like to note that the surveyor s report also accepts that when the premises caught fire, no one on behalf of the Complainant was present, as the unit had been closed at the end of the working day. This flows from the claim that the building owner had himself, as per the Surveyor, switched off the mains. In this background, we do not understand what was sought to be achieved by the Respondents, when they tried to delay a decision on the claim under the policy. No foul play is alleged. If there were such an allegation, the burden of proof would be on the person/party alleging foul play. WE therefore, agree with the conclusion reached by the State Commission on this point.