AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present revision petitioner has been filed by the petitioner against respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 23.11.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in which order dated 31.08.2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 75 of 2005 was challenged, interalia praying for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2017 of the State Commission.
Petitioner has challenged the said order of the State Commission mainly on the following grounds:
(a) There being no deficiency in service or adoption of any unfair trade practices by the petitioner-insurance company.
(b) Petitioner had recommended the claim as “No Claim” and had given cogent reasons for arriving at such an opinion.
(c) Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss if the impugned order is not set aside.
(d) Otherwise also the impugned order being incorrect and erroneous is liable to be set aside.
Heard learned counsels for both sides. Challenge is to order dated 23.11.2017 of the State Commission vide which appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed and order of the District Forum was upheld. District Forum vide its order dated 31.08.2009 partially allowed the complaint by fixing the cost of the projector after applying the depreciation for three years. The original price of the projector was Rs.2,40,000/- and a District Forum fixed the loss at Rs.1,92,000/- after deducting depreciation of Rs.48,000/-. The surveyor in his report applied the depreciation @ 75%. Learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company admits that there are no rules of the Insurance Company on record under which depreciation of 75% can be applied for the given period.
The petitioner Insurance Company, although contends that the said cinema theatre was not having electric connection, it was not running for about 6 months prior to the incident, but does not have a case as if the fire has been caused by the insured himself, and admit that the projector in question was under a valid insurance, which is not linked to the running or otherwise of the cinema hall. As the fact of fire and consequent damage to the projector is not in dispute, in our opinion, the cause for fire is irrelevant as long as the insured is not the person behind the fire. Once the claim is eligible, the only issue remains to be seen is the quantum of claim, which is primarily on account of the depreciation as discussed above.
Learned counsel for Insurance Company also argues that the lenses and speakers were not found at the site. It is seen that in this case the Insurance Company issued a letter dated 14.03.2005 to the insured seeking their response on various objections raised in pursuance to the surveyor’s report. As no response was received, no formal repudiation letter was issued by the Insurance Company, which subsequently led to filing of the consumer complaint.
We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rivals contentions of the parties, we are of the considered view that both the fora have given well-reasoned orders, duly addressing the contentions of both sides and it calls for no interference at the revision stage. “As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577] held 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.” We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. Hence the same is upheld.
Accordingly, RP is dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.