(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 13.7.2012 passed by State Commission in FA No. 43 of 2011 - Kapil Dev Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; by which appeal was allowed and order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent got insured his furniture unit named and styled as Kapil Furniture House, situated in village Jhiri, P.O. Nagwain, Sub -Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, in the sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs, with the opposite party/appellant during the year 2005 -06. The policy covered risk of furniture - finished, unfinished and furniture wood to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lacs. The policy covered the loss/ damage, inter alia, due to fire. On 30.04.2006, when the policy was in force, a fire broke out at 9.45 p.m. in the saw mill of the appellant. Fire engulfed the insured furniture industry too, besides completely gutting the saw mill. Report was promptly lodged with the police. Opposite Party was also apprised of the incident without any loss of time. A surveyor, by the name of Rajesh Sood, deputed by the opposite party, visited the spot on Ist May, 2006 or say on the very next day of the incident of fire and submitted report, as per which the insured stock and the building, stock and machinery and another unit of the appellant named and styled as M/s. Kapil Furniture Industry, which were insured with another Insurance Company, i.e. United India Insurance Company, had been gutted in fire. Thereafter, another surveyor was deputed by the opposite party, who reported that fire had broken out in the saw -mill and in that fire, saw -mill and the timber kept there were burnt and since the policy purchased from the opposite party did not cover the saw -mill and the stock kept at the saw -mill, but it pertained only to the furniture house named and styled as M/s. Kapil Furniture House, opposite party was not liable to pay anything and repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint, admitted issuance of policy but submitted that saw -mill, timber depot, M/s. Kapil Furniture Industry and M/s. Kapil Furniture House are separate and independent units. The fire took place in the saw -mill and after investigation was done by the Surveyors, Sh. Rajesh Sood, and Sh. S.K. Soni, it was found that the fire had occurred to the stock lying at the saw -mill and furniture of the manufacturing unit. The complainant got insured all kinds of wood, logs and furniture lying and kept in the M/s. Kapil Furniture House, but no loss has been caused to it. Even the complainant has also taken another insurance policy of United India Insurance Co., covering the risks other than of saw -mill. The complainant has also not supplied necessary documents to Sh. Surinder Kumar Soni, surveyor. In these circumstances, assessment made by the surveyor is correct and accordingly recommendation to treat the said claim as "No Claim" is justified and this was intimated vide letter dated 14.9.2007 to the complainant. The opposite party has also taken objection that the H.P. State Co -operative Bank who had given the loan is a necessary party because it has insurable interest in M/s. Kapil Furniture House. Further, United India Insurance is also a necessary party because the complainant has filed separate complaint against the said company for the same loss, and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint but given liberty to the complainant to approach Civil Court. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 1,82,800/ - with 9% p.a. interest alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/ - against which this revision petition has been filed alongwith application for condonation of delay.
(3.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.