National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Ashoka Fibers vs Natiaonal Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 11 November, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2511 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 21.10.2011 in F. Appeal No. 1632 of 2004 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ) M/s. Ashoka Fibers [Through its Proprietor: Mr. Ashok Kumar At: Behind S.R. Woolen Mills, Bhatia Colony, Kabri Road, Panipat, Haryana] Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Through its: Branch Manager At: near I.B. College, G.T. Road, Panipat, Haryana] 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Through its: Divisional Manager At: near Kishore Theatre, G.T. Road, Panipat, Haryana] Respondent/Opp. Parties (OP)
BEFORE :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Sh. Manish Chauhan, Proxy Counsel For the Respondents : Shri Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 11th November, 2014 O R D E R PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1632 of 2004 M/s. Ashoka Fibers Vs. M/s. National Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioners factory was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year from 14.12.1999 to 13.12.2000. During the intervening night of 26-27/6/2000, fire took place in the factory and loss was caused. Complainant intimated to the OP and surveyor was appointed. Complainant was not having any electric connection in the premises and factory was being run through the generator. Surveyor was not co-operating and demanding unnecessary information and complainant came to know that surveyor has assessed loss of only Rs.4,25,000/-, but OP has not allowed claim.
Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that claim submitted by complainant was false as he failed to produce the required documents and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admissions tage and perused record.
4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay of 138 days in filing revision petition may be condoned as petitioner was busy in marriage of his daughter scheduled to be held on 24.2.2012.
Apparently, there is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay, but as learned Counsel for the respondent has not opposed application and as complaint has been dismissed, though, surveyor worked out loss at Rs.1,89,553/-, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay subject to cost.
Consequently, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay stands condoned subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- with legal aid account of this Commission within 4 weeks from the date of order failing which, revision petition stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
5. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is non-speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
6. Perusal of record reveals that learned State Commission after narrating facts of the case and quoting observations of District Forum dismissed appeal as under:
Having gone though the case file, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the District Consumer Forum while dismissing the complaint. As per the report of the surveyors the record as well as the bills with respect to the sale and purchase of goods produced before them was manipulated.
Perusal of aforesaid order reveals that learned State Commission except quoting facts of the case and observations of District Forum has not discussed any grounds raised in memo of appeal and has simply dismissed appeal without considering any issues raised.
7. Honble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under:
1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:
We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN appellant and have also perused the impugned order.
We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission.
8. In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court is under an obligation to discuss all issues raised in memo of appeal, but as in the case in hand no issues raised in memo of appeal have been discussed and decided by learned State Commission, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by a speaking order.
9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1632 of 2004 M/s. Ashoka Fibers Vs. M/s. National Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 18.11.2014.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k