AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
This Revision Petition No.1333 of 2017 was filed on 18.05.2017 challenging the impugned order of the learned Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘State Commission’,) dated 16.02.2017. Vide this order, the learned State Commission dismissed Appeal No.525 of 2010. The said Appeal was filed against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gaya (‘District Forum’,) dated 21.09.2010. Vide this order, the learned District Forum, had held that the complaint filed by the Petitioner was not maintainable.
The brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that the Complainant is a Doctor by profession. He established a Diagnostic and Research Centre at Gaya, and an ACT Scan Machine was purchased by him and it was installed at his Centre. This machine was insured by the OPs for Rs.84,50,000/- from 20.06.2006 to 19.06.2007. As the Machine became defective, he reported to the insurer. A technical expert visited the Centre on 14.02.2008 and it was repaired in the presence of surveyor, deputed by the OPs. The repair cost was Rs.32,50,000 and the Complainant had filed a claim. Based on Surveyor report, OP/Insurance Company paid only Rs.15,84,000/- vide cheque dated 29.05.2007.
The Complainant alleged that Rs.24,72,839.48 was the actual loss and he received only Rs.15,84,000. Therefore, he is entitled for further payment of Rs.8,88,839.48. When the matter was not resolved, he approached the learned District Forum. The OPs, in their reply, raised objections on the ground that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the case and that the same is frivolous, vexatious and that District Forum had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the Complaint. It is also averred that the payment was made after the settlement of the claim in presence of the Complainant without any protest and the complaint is not maintainable.
The learned District Forum vide order dated 21.09.2010 has held that the Complaint was not maintainable after acceptance of full and final settlement amount. On Appeal, the learned State Commission vide order dated 16.02.2017 dismissed the same, and observed as under:
“6. Having considered the submissions of parties, grounds of appeal and the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the District Forum has considered the matter in correct perspective. Surveyor report to assess the loss is an important document as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Several Judgment. It cannot be ignored without justified evidences. The Insurance Company has paid Rs.15,84,000/- on the basis of surveyor’s report. The District Forum has also dismissed the claim on that basis. We do not find any illegality in the District Forum order which seems proper and justified. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed..”
I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties.
It is an admitted position that the Complainant had received Rs.15,84,643 against his claim, as per the Surveyor’s Report from the Respondents as full and final settlement. The Petitioner has not in any manner corroborated that the full and final settlement arrived at Rs.15,84,643 was under any fraud, undue influence, coercion, duress, misrepresentation of facts or he was left with no option but to accept the same. It was he who voluntarily consented for settlement. This order is now being challenged at the revision stage.
It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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, in the absence of any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the State Commission, warranting our interference under Section 21(b) of the Act. The order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2011) 11 SCC 269 is clear. In ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, has held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under:-
“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.
Upon due consideration of the evidence on record and the arguments advanced, it is clear that well reasoned orders were passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission. I find no reason to interfere with the orders.
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.