- (1.) WE have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. The only question in this appeal, on which the appellant Insurance Company is liable to succeed, is whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") could have granted additional amount of interest even though the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short "the District Forum") had made no such direction.
(2.) THE respondent, a company engaged in running cold storage business, entered into an insurance contract with the appellant with regard to loss of the goods stored in its cold storage. There was a power failure/leakage of gas as a result of which extensive loss was caused to the potatoes stored in the cold storage of the respondent. The respondent claimed value of goods (potatoes) lost, namely, Rs. 2,38,147.46p. from the appellant. On the claim not being accepted, the respondent moved the District Forum, Calcutta and sought the sum of Rs. 2,38,147.46p. towards loss of potatoes and Rs. 65,252.00 as excess premium refundable by the appellant Company together with interest on both the amounts. The District Forum, by its order dtd. 28/2/1996, allowed the claim and directed that the appellant Insurance Company shall pay to the respondent the actual amount of money already paid by the respondent herein to its hirers (owners of goods who had hired the storage facility and stored their goods) on account of loss of potatoes from the cold storage unit due to the occurrence of accident on 25/9/1990 "on production of cash vouchers to the opposite party within one month".
(3.) THE District Forum neither quantified the amount, nor granted interest, nor directed refund of the alleged excess premium. Apparently, the respondent was satisfied by this order because the respondent did not carry any appeal against the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant Insurance Company carried an appeal to the State Commission.;