SURYACHEM INDUSTRIES Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company.

(2.) Very briefly stated the facts leading to filing the case were that the respondent/complainant firm had insured its machine, building (shed) and goods against risk of damages from cyclone, etc. for the period 28.9.1999 to 27.9.2000. There is no dispute that the property of the insured was damaged by cyclone on 3.6.2000. The matter was reported to the respondent/opposite party. A Surveyor was appointed. A claim was also preferred with the respondent by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,82,275. When the respondent Insurance Company informed the petitioner of treating their claim as 'no claim' and when even on representation matter was not getting sorted, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 17,400 in full and final settlement along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of rejection till payment along with cost of Rs. 1,000. Not satisfied with this relief, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, who partly allowed the appeal by directing the opposite party to pay in all Rs. 31,200. Still not satisfied with the relief, this revision petition has been filed before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. His argument is that the claimed amount of Rs. 95,305 has not been given which means deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. There is a concurrent finding of fact on the point of loss assessed by the Surveyor with specific reference to the re-usability of the wooden ballies as also the GI sheets. What has been allowed by the Surveyor are the labour charges with regard to building and also repairing charges for the machine, as well as rewinding of electrical motor. The Surveyor arrived at this figure after providing for 'depreciation' in the used parts but we see that the State Commission has deleted the amounts of 'depreciation' and has allowed in full the damages assessed by the Surveyor. We are unable to appreciate the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 'ballies' and GI sheets could not be used. It has been severally held that the report of the Surveyor is an important document and has to be given due relevance and importance unless it is rebutted by some cogent evidence. No such evidence has been led before us. There is concurrent finding of the fact of the reusability of wooden ballies and GI sheets. In exercise of revision jurisdiction, we are not expected to look or enter into the concurrent finding returned by the lower Fora. In our view, the State Commission could not have deleted the depreciation part, because as per conditions of the policy the Insurance Company is entitled for depreciation on the parts but since the Insurance Company is not in revision petition before us, we are not taking any adverse view on this point. In the aforementioned circumstances, in view of the concurrent finding of the basic facts, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission in exercise of revision jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.