Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Narayana Dattu Nikam vs Chairman on 28 April, 2026

                                                                                                               Pagc I ot i




           BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAI- CO\IiUISSIO\
                   Basava Bhavan, Sri Basaveswara Circle, High grounds. Bangalorc-56000 L

                                               Appeal No. - 1560 12017

Appclhnt/s

l. Narayana Dattu Nikam
  S/o Dattu Nikam.
  Aged about 59 years,
  ACID Merchant.
  Neal Raghavendra Swamy Mun,
  Mangalore-575001
  Karnataka

tDt ShrilSmt Deshraj )
                                                -l crsus-
llcspondcnt/s

   Chairman
   Universal SOMPO General Insurance Com. Lld.,
   Claims Office: K.L.S. Towers, Plat No. EL94,
   Cround floor, MIDC Mahape,
   Navi Murnbai-400710

2. Manager
   M/s Kamataka Bank,
   Dongelkery branch,
   Mangalore-57500 |

(B), Shri/Sml )

                                                    oIIDI.:I{ SH I' tiT

         Appeal rcccived on 2 l/07/20l7 through Advocate Deshtaj


        This is an Appeat U/S I5 of C.P. Act. preferred against the orders passed b],the Dislrict (.oliolrler Fortrrri
Dakshina Kannada on 2l106/2017 in Complaint No 380/?012. Placed before Principal ll!'rrch Atlditionirl llenclr ol'tliL'
Commission on 03i08/2017 at I I A.M.


         L Frec copy sent on ,22106/2017
        2. In time.


st.Iild
 KSCDRC, Bangalore




                                                                          no=15(t0&Case -r'r:ar-2t) l7&citsc    2 ll)l-21,1'
 http://kscdrcsrv/kscdrc/filinganrlOtherArea-/order-sheetprinl.asp?case
                                    -fi-
                                                            A.ts6ol2ot7
24.O4.20.26


Oral:       the Hon'ble Judicial member/ Hon'ble Ladv Member:

Case called out - The respondent No.2 counsel present and respondent No. 1 not present. Heard further from the counsel for appellant. The matter was posted for orders on 12.Og.2O22, so for the order was not pronounced, hence heard further.

2. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the District Commission had not provided any findings with respect to the whether the Almirahs were locked or not. Merely basing on report provided by the surveyor has dismissed the complaint. In fact they have sworn affidavit and filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging a deficiency of service for not settling the claim for the jewels of the shop which robbed. The Almirahs and Showcases were locked and it was broke opened by the keys, but the same fact was not discussed, merely basing on the findings of the surveyor report, the District Commission had dismissed the complaint. The matter requires for re_ adjudication whether the complainant established that the Showcases and Almirahs were locked or not and there is no any findings with respect to the said facts. The order has to be set aside, hence and prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and remand the matter for re-adjudication.

3. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, we noted that the District Commission had arrived to the conclusion that the jewels were not kept in the safe lock as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The said conclusion arrived merely basing on the survey report, no proper explanation provi r by the District Commission what is safe .-13' p tssofit lock, whether the jewels kept in the Almirahs and Showcases, it is considered as safe lock. In this regard no proper adjudication rvas made by the District Commission and the survey rePort was not properly observed by the District Commission, hence the matter requires for re-adjudication before District Commission itself. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission isherebysetasideandthecomplaintisrestoredinitsoriginal number and remanded back to the District Commission to try andadjudicatethematteronmeritsexpeditiouslyafterhearing from both sides. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER The appeal is allowed. No order as to cost' The impugned order dated 21-6-2017 passed by the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangaluru in CC.No'38O l2Ol2 is set-aside' The District Consumer Commission is directed to restore the matter in its original number and adjudicate the matter upon the appreciation of evidence and documents produced by both parties and dispose the matter expeditiously on merits Send a coPY of this order to both P arties as well S Concerned District Commission.

                      \4 \ 2-oLe
             SUIV,?E C.BAGEWADI                            SIIAJVI(jR
       (Lody Member)                             Pudiciol Member)