Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.S. Chaudhari, (Presiding Member) and B.C. Gupta

ORDER

B.C. Gupta, Member

1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 603/2005, "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sri Sarbati Steel Tubes Ltd." vide which appeal against the order dated 12.09.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) was allowed, the order of the District Forum was set aside and the consumer complaint no. 295/2003, in question was ordered to be dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the M/s. Sri Sarbati Steel Tubes Limited is a manufacturer of Steel Tubes having its registered office at Chennai and its two factories at Pondicherry. The complainant/petitioner obtained a fire insurance policy bearing no. 411600/0/0/F/11010/2002 from the respondent/OP, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') covering the risk of building, plant and machinery against the loss/damage caused by fire, storm, tempest, flood and inundation for its two factories at Pondicherry containing the product division and tube division respectively for a period of one year from 28.05.2001 to 27.05.2002 and the total sum insured was ` 7,43,00,000/- at an annual premium of ` 1,00,055/-. On 10.05.2002, at around 4:00 PM, due to strong winds, coupled with storm and heavy rain in the factory area, more than 100 asbestos sheets were blown off from the roof and the truss of the mill section was badly damaged. The Insurance Company was duly intimated and the complainant filed two claims with the Insurance Company for the loss/damage for ` 50,000/- and ` 2,50,000/- respectively. The OP appointed M/s. Crystal Surveyor, Pondicherry, who visited the factory and submitted his preliminary report to the OP. Subsequently, the OP appointed a second surveyor, Mr. S. Jagadeeswaran. The said surveyor asked the complainant to furnish estimated cost of repair to the building, shed etc. The complainant stated that a sum of ` 1,81,888/- towards cost of material and ` 66,746/- towards cost of labour, the total being ` 2,48,634/- had been spent on repairs. The bills were furnished to the surveyor. The said surveyor, in his report estimated the total loss to be ` 1,10,077/- for the two divisions, ` 88,912.50 ps. was the estimate for the tube division and ` 2,11,64.38 ps. was the estimate for the flat division, including the labour charges. The surveyor also estimated that there was under-insurance to the extent of 51.9% in tube division and 76.8% in the flat division. After accounting for said percentage of under-insurance from the estimated value of loss/damage and after deducting ` 10,000/- for excess, the surveyor reported that the net liability for the Insurance Company was ` 37,677/- only. The insurance company sent a loss discharge voucher for ` 37,624/- by their letter dated 21.03.2003. It is the case of the complainant that the said amount was accepted under protest, whereas OP/Insurance Company maintains that the amount was accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement. The petitioner/complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum, claiming an amount of ` 2,11,014/- along with a sum of ` 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment an........