MINU CHOUDHARY W/O SH. MITHLESH CHOUDHARY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHREE DEVI STORE, JAGDAMA DHARAMSHALA, BUS STAND, CHAS BOKARO JHARKHAND Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

(2.) These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 20/2010 & 24/2010 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Minu Choudhary & Anr. & M/s. Shree Devi Stores Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeals, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant Minu Choudhary/petitioner is proprietor of shop working in the name of M/s. Shree Devi Stores got it insured from OP No. 1/ Respondent No. 1 by two separate policies and complainant obtained cash credit facility from different OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2. Shop of complainant was burnt in the night of 17.11.2008 during subsistence of insurance policy due to electrical short circuit, goods of Rs.9,38,000.00 in Complaint No. 37/09 and goods of Rs.4,98,278.00 in Complaint No. 47/09 were burnt. Complainant intimated to OP and submitted claim to OP and OP No. 1 deposited in complainant’s account Rs.1,70,000.00 in Complaint No. 37/09 and Rs. 1,30,739.00 in Complaint No. 47/09 without consent of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed two complaints before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaints, admitted issuance of policy and also admitted assessment of loss and payment made by them to complainant. It was further pleaded that list of articles burnt in fire are same and similar in both the cases and also raised objection regarding issuance of two policies on the same premises. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 also resisted complaint and denied any deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.7,40,000.00 in Complaint No. 37/09 and Rs. 2,74,261.00 in Complaint No. 47/09. OP No. 1 filed appeals before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeals and dismissed complaints against which, these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.