Beniram Sahu vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd

C. Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in FA/2014/363 dated 08.03.2018.

The Petitioner/Complainant stated in his Complaint that on 30.03.2010, he purchased a tractor for agricultural work with chassis No. WGTA-35605072406 and Engine No. 391348/SNA00486 from M/s Akash House Tractor Pulgaon Chowk Durg for Rs.6,00,000/-. The Representative of the Respondent /Opposite Party, who was an insurance consultant, told the Petitioner at the time of purchasing the tractor, that as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, it has necessary to insure the new tractor. The Petitioner, being an illiterate person, was unable to understand the proforma of the insurance company due to which couldn't fill the form. On the same day, the Petitioner paid a premium amount of Rs.6933/- to Daneshwar Dubey and signed the proforma. At that time another person, who was also present at the tractor shop, was introduced to the Petitioner as Agent of the RTO. He took the signature of the Petitioner for registration of the tractor as well as registration amount. Later the Insurance and RTO agent gave the insurance policy and registration certificate of the tractor to the Petitioner. The Respondent issued the Policy in favour of the Petitioner with policy number 45120131100100000584 which was effective from 11.05.2010 to 10.05.2011. As per the Policy, if any loss occurred to the tractor, the insurance company would pay the entire amount. On 07.12.2010 Petitioner's close friend, Chabiram Netro, took the tractor from him for agriculture purpose free of cost. The tractor was being driven by the driver of the Petitioner i.e. Bharat Lal Nirmalkar. During the Minzaai, the tractor got burnt and damaged due to short circuit and fire could not be controlled despite sincere efforts. Intimation was given to Police Station Anjora, where the Police after investigation came to the conclusion the tractor got burnt due to short circuit and the paddy of Chabiram was also burnt. Intimation about the same was also given in the office of the Respondent. As per the direction of the Respondent, the claim form was submitted by the Petitioner, but no intimation was given by the Respondent regarding the loss of the tractor. On 09.07.2012, a letter was given in the office of the Respondent. On 20.07.2012, the Respondent sought answers to some queries from the Petitioner. On 13.08.2012, through registered post, the Petitioner sent a copy of Rojnamcha register of Police Station, Anjora, alongwith a reply and after that contacted the Respondent many times but no reply was given. The Respondent repudiated the claim of the Petitioner, vide letter dated 19.09.2012, on the ground that at the time of incident, the tractor was given on rent to some other person which was against the terms of the insurance policy and violation of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Act. By repudiating the claim of the Petitioner, the Respondent committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, Complaint was filed.

The Complaint was contested by the Respondent that he had insured the Petitioner's tractor, having chassis No. WQTA-35605072406 and Engine No. 39.1348/SNA00486 and registration No. C.G.07/N5970. It was mentioned that the Petitioner had written the wrong chassis number. Insurance was taken for agriculture purpose, in which very small amount of premium was taken and road tax was also not to be paid. No person could give the tractor free of cost for Minzaai. The said tractor was given to Chabiram Netro for earning profit and the land was taken from Ramadhar for agriculture purpose. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Motor Vehicle Act, the insurance company was not liable for any cost. The Respondent had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The Complaint of the Petitioner was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

District Forum, vide order dated 13.02.2014, dismissed the Complaint of the Petitioner as he had failed to prove his case. The Petitioner had not produced any documents by which he could prove that the tractor was not running against the terms and conditions of the Policy and the Motor Vehicle Act. The District Forum held that the Petitioner, by giving the tractor on rent, had violated the terms and conditions. The Respondent by repudiating the claim of the Petitioner on the ground of violation of insurance policy had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

Aggrieved by order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, vide order dated 08.03.2018, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum. In the perspective of the above investigation, it was found that the Petitioner gave the tractor on rent which was a violation of the insurance terms and in such a situation the Respondent i.e. insurance company by repudiating the claim of the Petitioner had not committed any kind of deficiency in service. The order of District Forum was a completely legal order. There was no irregularity or illegality in the order and did not warrant interference.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He reiterated his contentions as stated above. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.

It is to be noted that this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has limited jurisdiction. It is not required to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence and reach to its own independent conclusion, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011(3) Scale 654 has held as under:

"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power cane be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same sets of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora".

There is a concurrent finding on the present matter by both the Fora below that the Petitioner had not produced any document on record which could prove that the tractor was not running against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and Motor Vehicle Act. The Complainant had given the tractor on rent. In pursuant to the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that the judgement passed by the State Commission as well as the District Commission was just and fair. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the both the Fora below.

In view of the concurrent findings of the both the Fora below, I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merits, hence the same is dismissed.