AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
This Revision Petition No. 1400 of 2022 challenges the impugned order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (State Commission) dated 16.06.2022. Vide this order the State Commission dismissed Appeal No.1202 of 2010. In turn, this appeal was filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Junagarh (District Forum, hereafter) dated 12.02.2007. Vide this order, the District Forum, had also dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner/Complainant.
Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/ Complainant, are that the husband of complainant died due to "sun stroke" while repairing fencing of farm during afternoon hours on 01.05.2001. He was a registered farmer and member of Morwada Krushi Sahakari Mandali Ltd and had Insurance from 04.10.2000 to 03.10.2001 under Janata Akasmat Vima Policy granted to all members. Therefore, she filed the claim for compensation of Insurance Rs. 50,000/- along with all documents. But, the respondent rejected claim on death of husband of complainant was not due to accident.
The District Forum vide order dated 12.02.2007 dismissed the Complaint by holding that the OP has not committed any deficiency of service and hence, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.
On Appeal, the State Commission, vide the order dated 16.06.2022 affirmed the order of the District Forum as below:
(8) On page No. 16, letter rejecting of insurance company of dt. 28/1/2002 of Insurance Company is produced. As stated in that "Death of deceased was happened due to" "Sun Stroke" in post mortem report of dt. 1/5/2001. According to the condition of Janata Personal accident Policy, death of insured is due to accident then amount of insurance is available, Hence / therefore file is closed as amount of claim is not eligible.
(9) From the name of Policy, it is "Janata Akasmat" insurance policy, which, the deceased was having, account holder farmer, but his death is not accident death. As per the law of contract, benefit of accident compensation is available. As respondent stated, accident only can be considered incidence happens due to out-word violent and visible means. Natural course of death does not come under the Insurance Policy Hence claim is not available. Therefore there is no fault in their service.
(10) Husband of complainant was member of Morwada Agricultural Sahakari Mandali and account holder farmer group insurance policy of all members was issued dt. 4/10/2000 to dt. 3/10/2001, during the period of Policy, death of husband of complainant was happened due to "Sun Stroke" which cannot be considered as accidental death, cause of death of husband of complainant it due to "Sun Stroke" it is clearly mentioned as per post mortem. Hence it cannot be covered in Policy, So Insurance Company properly rejected claim order of learned forum is proper and just so there is no need of interference, Order is passed as follow.
//ORDER//
1) Appeal Number 1202/2010 is hereby rejected.
2) The order of consumer complaint number 153/2003 of dated 12/2/2007 before Junagadh district consumer dispute redressal forum is upheld.
3) No order of regarding cost is done.
4) Copy of this judgement is to be given to parties of appeal.
5) Registry is instructed that it is to sent the copy of this order to District Commission Junagadh by P.D.F. e-mail for necessary procedure.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and asserted that the husband of the Petitioner was carrying out agricultural activities passed away on 01.05.2001 due to SUN STROKE caused by heatwave, therefore the death of the Petitioners husband is accidental and cannot be termed as a natural death. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Commission in the case of Rita Devi @ Rita Gupta v. National Insurance Co Ltd 2007 SCC Online NCDRC. He sought to set aside the impugned order of by the Fora below and allow the complaint.
The learned Counsel for Respondents reiterated the facts of case and raised objections in the reply filed before the District Forum and argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission.
I have examined the pleadings and associated documents on records as well as the orders and reasoning of the learned District Forum and the State Commission. The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after hearing both parties, determined that the District Forum's order required no intervention. This was primarily because the Petitioner failed to prove that the respondents were committed any deficiency in service as husband of the petitioner died due to Sun Stroke which is not included in the policy. This order is now being challenged at the revision stage. It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Thus, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. Further, Honble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:-
9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....
Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:-
As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.