AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.5.2017 passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan Jaipur in FA No.372/2015, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.3.2015 passed by the District Forum has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the insurance was taken by the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) for the cargo which was being carried by the truck of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has paid the premium, the insurance is in the name of IOC and the IOC had filed a claim and insurance company had made payment of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the IOC which has already been paid to the petitioner. The fact is that the petitioner has suffered a loss of Rs.6.5 lakhs and the IOC has recovered the remaining amount from the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get the total loss from the insurance company. The petitioner is covered under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the petitioner is a service provider. Learned counsel further argued that as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 the petitioner is a beneficiary as the petitioner has received the amount paid by the insurance company to the IOC. As a beneficiary, the petitioner is a consumer.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen that the insurance is in the name of the IOC and that insurance claim has already been settled by the insurance company. IOC has already made that payment to the petitioner. The recovery of remaining amount from the petitioner by the IOC is governed by a separate contract between petitioner and IOC and insurance company is not a party to that contract. The petitioner is a service provider to the IOC and not to the insurance company and therefore, Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 is not applicable in the present case. Had the complaint been filed by the IOC, then definitely, Section 2(1)(o) would have become applicable. The argument in respect of Section 2(1)(d) of the C,P. Act, 1986 raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of any merit as the policy does not mention the name of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered as beneficiary in the present case.
Both the fora below have given concurrent findings and have dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. Against the concurrent finding of facts, the scope under the revision petition becomes very limited in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654; wherein following has been observed:
"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 can 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 that 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 set 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 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 finding of two fora."
In view of the above decision, the facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission. I also do not find any legal lacuna in the orders passed by the fora below and petitioner cannot be covered under a contract which has been entered with insurance company and IOC only.
Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition as no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is observed in the order dated 9.5.2017 which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.2559 of 2017 is dismissed.