SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 A fire broke out in the factory premises of the appellant on 15.11.2007 and the quantity of wastepaper destroyed by fire was estimated at 8500 MT. Appellant's claim was approved only to the extent of Rs.2,85,76,561/­, in full and final settlement. The respondent informed the appellant that the claim could be finalized only for the amount indicated in the letter dated 21.08.2009. The appellant, through letter dated 14.09.2009, again raised objections to the Survey Report, but the respondent refused to reconsider the appointment of a surveyor.  The appellant filed a consumer complaint before the National Commission under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The National Commission, by its Judgment dated 3.07.2018 rejected the claim of the appellant under both the heads, but directed the respondent to pay only the amount of Rs.2,85,76,561/­ as admitted by them. This amount was directed to be paid to the appellant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.11.2007, only till the date the Insurance Company had made the offer.Surveyors arrived at the value of loss at Rs.3,42,77,015.34/­. The Surveyor adopted the second option namely that of volumetric analysis and assessed the quantity of raw material damaged at 2264.400 MT. He valued this raw material @ Rs.15137.35/­ per MT, inclusive of CENVAT. After so doing, the Surveyor fixed the salvage value at Rs. 18,92,200/­ and deducted the same from the raw material to arrive at the gross assessed loss at Rs.3,23,84,815.34.The grievance of the appellant is primarily with respect to the quantification of the net weight of raw material destroyed in the fire accident. The price of the material, fixed by the Surveyor at Rs.15137.35/­ per MT, is not seriously disputed. Though a dispute is raised with regard to the salvage value, the contention relating to the same is very weak and feeble and hence we would not get into the same.SC observed insured had produced 2 sets of records and the quantum of material destroyed by fire arrived on the basis of these records showed huge discrepancies. The Surveyor had no alternative but to reject these records and proceed on volumetric analysis. We find that the refusal of the Surveyor to go by the stock records of the appellant was fully justified. A Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with an allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject the surveyor's report to forensic examination, just as a civil court could do. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop.  Appeal is dismissed 

SEPTEMBER  28, 2021 

Khatema Fibres Ltd.   Versus  New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. 

Latest Legal News