Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 397 (JK)

Naseer Ahmed v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2019-08-29

RAJESH BINDAL, SINDHU SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sindhu Sharma, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as 'State Commission') whereby the appeal of the appellant against the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Divisional Consumer Forum, Jammu was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are; petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No. 8409/JK02C met with an accident near Lower Munda, Qazigund on 15.11.1998, which resulted in total loss. The petitioner applied to the respondent/company for indemnification of the loss of Rs. 3,52,451/-, alongwith interest. 3. Insurance Company deputed a surveyor to assess the loss/damage who reported loss of Rs. 1,20,003/-. However, the respondent did not accept the report and repudiated the claim of the petitioner. 4. Divisional Consumer Forum after appreciating the evidence held the petitioner entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,20,003/- alongwith interest @ 6% as assessed in the surveyor's report. 5. Aggrieved by the order of learned Divisional Consumer Forum Jammu, appellant preferred the appeal before the State Commission only on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Divisional Consumer Forum, Jammu was inadequate and he was entitled to entire amount of Rs. 3,52,451/- alongwith interest i.e., Rs. 4,82,857/- as claimed. 6. Learned State Commission vide order dated 21.10.2009 dismissed the appeal holding that there was no evidence on record to prove that the loss of Rs. 4,82,857/- suffered by the petitioner on account of damage to his vehicle. It was also held that since the assessment was based on the report of duly authorized surveyor and no objection was raised by the petitioner against the report or inadequacy of the amount assessed. Mere assertion in the complaint was not sufficient to hold otherwise. Petitioner also could not prove that the loss suffered by him was more than the amount assessed by the surveyor, thus, the learned State Commission found the appeal without any merit and dismissed the same. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view expressed by the State Commission is not in accordance with law and is contrary to the evidence on record. Both the State Commission and Divisional Forum have failed to consider that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view expressed by the State Commission is not in accordance with law and is contrary to the evidence on record. Both the State Commission and Divisional Forum have failed to consider that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 4,82,857/- as claimed by him for the loss suffered on account of damage to the vehicle, as such, the orders of the Divisional Consumer Forum and State Commission are required to be set aside. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It appears that the learned State Commission after going through the evidence had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had raised no objection during the proceedings to the loss assessed in terms of the surveyor's report. Since the petitioner has not objected to the surveyor's report, the Forum has rightly concluded that the detailed assessment of the loss as assessed by the surveyor has rightly been awarded. Since the petitioner does not point any failure on the part of the State Commission to consider any material relevant or having considered any extraneous material for denying enhancement, therefore, there is no merit in this petition in view of the law laid down in State of A.P. v. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (Dead) & another, 2003 (10) SCC 121 :- "33. No doubt, it was held that neither in exercise of the power of writ under Article 226 nor in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court will convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in the re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence. The power of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere where important evidence has been overlooked and the legal provisions involved are misinterpreted or misapplied has been recognized even in the case of Swarn Singh on which strong reliance was placed on behalf of the State. The relevant observations are: "13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law." 10. Thus, the view taken by the State Commission is based on the evidence on record. We do not find any infirmity in the decision arrived at, as such, this petition is found to be without any merit, and is dismissed.