Case nº Revision Petition No. 2614 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 30/11/2010 in Appeal No. 140/2007 of the State Commission Gujarat) of NCDRC Cases, February 13, 2017 (case Ms. Jay Gurdev Finishing Works Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Malhotra, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Rajesh K. Gupta, Advocate |
| President | Dr. B.C. Gupta,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | February 13, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
-
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 140/2007, "Jay Gurudev finishing works vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited," vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 11.01.2007, passed by the District Forum, Rajkot in consumer complaint No. 274/2003, filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.
-
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, Jay Gurudev Finishing Works is a processing and finishing unit with Mr. Kailash V. Pipaliya as its proprietor and its main business is to do the job work for various parties and convert the material received from them into finished goods. The complainant obtained a Fire Policy for a sum of `15 lakhs from the Opposite Party (OP), the Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ''insurance company'') valid from 31.08.2001 to 30.08.2002. There was a fire in the unit on 10.01.2002, during the subsistence of the policy, causing damage to the goods at the premises. The case of the complainant as stated in the memo of appeal filed before the State Commission is that the material for processing was received by them from seven different sources, one of which was M/s. Purshottam Print. At the time of the incident, there was a total of 14036 sarees, valued at `9.63 lakhs. All the seven suppliers had filed supporting affidavits in support of the complainant. However, the claim was repudiated by the insurance company, based on the report of the surveyor, Hitarth Desai and the investigator, Ketan Thakkar, taking the plea that one of the suppliers M/s. Purshottam Print had obtained the material from M/s. Amolak Industries. There was a bill in respect of 1200 sarees taken by M/s. Purshottam Print from M/s. Amolak Industries, but the said bill was found to be fake, because as per the report of the investigator, there was no such firm known as Amolak Industries. The Insurance Company took the plea that since part of the claim filed by the complainant was fraudulent, all benefits under the insurance policies were seized as per clause 8 of section 2 of the fire policy. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in questions, seeking directions to the insurance company to pay a sum of `9,63,477/- alongwith...
To continue reading
Request your trial