State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Rekha Devi vs Ganpati Cold Storage on 6 September, 2022
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVISION PETITION NO. 66 OF 2022 (Arising out of order dated 24.06.2022 passed in C.C.No. 85/2019 by District Commission, Gwalior) SMT. REKHA DEVI, W/O SHRI MOHANLAL ... PETITIONER Versus GANPATI COLD STORAGE & NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ... RESPONDENTS REVISION PETITION NO. 67 OF 2022 (Arising out of order dated 24.06.2022 passed in C.C.No. 86/2019 by District Commission, Gwalior) GOVIND AGRAWAL ... PETITIONER Versus GANPATI COLD STORAGE & NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ... RESPONDENTS REVISION PETITION NO. 68 OF 2022 (Arising out of order dated 24.06.2022 passed in C.C.No. 353/2019 by District Commission, Gwalior) SMT. NEETA DEVI ... PETITIONER Versus GANPATI COLD STORAGE & NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ... RESPONDENTS REVISION PETITION NO. 69 OF 2022 (Arising out of order dated 24.06.2022 passed in C.C.No. 666/2020 by District Commission, Gwalior) M/S CHOURASIA KHADYA BHANDAR ... PETITIONER Versus GANPATI COLD STORAGE & NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ... RESPONDENTS BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Ms. Preetima Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. -2- O R D E R
(Passed On 06.09.2022) The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:
Aforesaid 4 revision petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order as common point involved in the matter. This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid revision petitions. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the Revision Petition No. 66/2022 unless otherwise stated.
2. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.85/2019, whereby two interim applications filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief were dismissed.
3. Facts of the case in short as stated by the petitioner are the petitioner stored her goods in the cold storage of opposite party no.1 which were insured by the opposite party no.2-insurance company under hold and trust. The goods damaged on 25.12.2008 due to fire broke out in cold storage. When she did not receive the compensation, she approached the District Commission. The opposite party no.1 cold storage submitted that the goods were not insured for fire and were insured only for burglary. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2 insurance company filed amended reply stating that as per surveyor's report the opposite party no.2-insurance -3- company paid Rs.39,80,529/- to opposite party no.1-cold storage as interim relief.
4. The complainant/petitioner therefore filed an application dated 15.09.2021 making a prayer that the opposite party no.2-insurance company be directed to file survey report, which was allowed by the District Commission and directed the insurance company to file survey report. It is alleged that the insurance company instead of final survey report had filed interim survey report. On this, the petitioner moved another application making a prayer that a case under Section 195 IPC and Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code against the officers of the opposite parties be registered.
5. The District Commission vide impugned order dismissed the said application holding that the interim relief sought cannot be granted at this stage and if this Commission at the time of final order, will find that the a person has committed crime in the documents or evidence produced before this Commission then this application will be considered. Hence this revision.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the revision petition and the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
-4-7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in not allowing the said application particularly when instead of filing final survey report the insurance company in collusion with the cold storage had filed interim survey report. The District Commission itself ought to have registered the case against the officers of the opposite parties under Section 195 Indian Penal Code and Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-cold storage argued that the District Commission has committed no error in dismissing the application. He submits that the petitioner applied delayed tactic by filing applications. He argued that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the said survey report. He can obtain the information from the insurance company under RTI.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance company argued that in compliance of directions issued by the District Commission, the insurance company had already filed the survey report. Except it there is no survey report in this regard. She argued that even otherwise the insurance company is not liable to supply documents to the petitioner as the petitioner has no relation with the insurance company. The insurance company insured the cold storage premises.
-5-10. After hearing counsels for parties and on perusal of record we find that it is emphatically evident that the first prayer in the first application regarding production of surveyor's report by the insurance company was allowed and the insurance company had already filed the survey report. The grievance of the petitioner is that the insurance company instead of filing the final survey report had filed interim survey report and therefore the petitioner made second prayer in second application that action be taken against the officers of the opposite parties/respondents under Section 195 IPC and Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code.
11. In this context learned counsel appearing on behalf of insurance company submitted at bar that the only survey report available with the insurance company had already been filed before the District Commission. We are of a considered view that if there is any other survey report and if it is not filed by the insurance company then the District Commission will take adverse view against the insurance company while deciding the matter finally.
12. Even otherwise it is well settled that Section 195 Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the -6- document was in custodia legis. See the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Criminal) 402 OF 2005 Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr decided on 11.03.2005. It is not the case of the petitioner that any offence as enumerated under Section 195 was committed in respect to the document after it had been produced or filed in the District Commission.
13. In revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the District Commission below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Commission.
14. In view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are dismissed having no merits and substance. No order as to costs. This order be placed in Revision Petition No. 66/2022 and a copy be placed in Revision Petition Nos. 67, 68 and 69 of 2022.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey) (D. K. Shrivastava) Presiding Member Member Member