National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Chemshel Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 5 September, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Revision Petition No. 142 of 2011 (From the order dated 24.08.2010 in Appeal no. 173 of 2010 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata) M/s Chemshel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Shri Vivek Kataruka Head Office at P.N. Ghosh Street Purulia District West Bengal ........ Petitioner (s) vs 1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Having its Office at 3, Middleton Street Post Box No. 9229 Kolkata 700 071 2. Senior Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Chass Branch Office Nataraj Mansion, Bye Pass Road Post Office no. 827013 Bokaro, Jharkhand ........ Respondent (s) BEFORE: HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner (s) Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Shikha Singh, Advocate For the Respondent (s) Mr. R. B. Shami, Advocate Pronounced on 5th September 2011 ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 24.08.2010 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koltaka (in short, the State Commission) in appeal no. FA 173 of 2010 filed by the present petitioner. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purulia (in short, the District Forum), by which the District Forum had after a detailed discussion of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record, dismissed the complaint. The petitioner had filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company in repudiating its insurance claim pertaining to damage to its factory building and stocks during the period 18-21 October 2005 due to heavy rain and cyclonic storm.
2. I have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and considered the documents brought on record. The main point urged by the learned counsel is that the building of the factory had been inspected by the officials concerned of the respondent before the insurance policy for the period 28.06.2005 to 27.06.2006 was issued and therefore, the respondent could not turn around after the peril and state that the building had defects as a result of which the stocks and building were damaged during the aforesaid period of heavy rain in October 2005.
3. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the District Forum has discussed this point in its order dated 11.03.2010. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below: In his cross-examination the PW I (complainant deposed that he had no paper to show that the officers of OP 2 visited the factor premises before issuance of the policy and that he has no paper to show that there were heavy rains and cyclonic storm and flood in the midnight (sic) of 18.10.2005. In the other words, the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that therepudiation was on an untenable grounds, viz., there were pre-existing defects/lack of maintenance in the building was not supported by any evidence brought on record by the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no jurisdictional error, material irregularity or legal infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission (or, any infirmity in the District Forum) and hence no interference under section 21 (b0 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is warranted.
5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
..
[ Anupam Dasgupta ] Presiding Member Satish