AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 863 of 2013 dated 25.02.2014 arising out of order dated 24.09.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 153 of 2012.
The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that late Manoj Kumar, son of respondents 1 and 2 had opened a Savings Bank account with respondent no.3 (Axis Bank) on 07.10.2011. As per the scheme of the respondent Bank, a Debit cum ATM card was issued to the said Manoj Kumar. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 had a credit card Package Insurance Policy with the petitioner covering the risk of lost card liability and personal accident insurance subject to eligibility criteria and exceptions of the policy. On 18.11.2011 the said Manoj Kumar died in a road accident. Respondent 1 approached the respondent no. 3/Bank for payment of the accident insurance claim as nominee and was informed of the procedure required to be followed. A legal notice dated 05.07.2012 was issued by respondent no. 1 to which the respondents 3 and 4 replied on 14.07.2012. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 neither followed the procedure for the claim nor fulfilled the eligibility criteria but sent the documents to respondents 3 and 4 on 17.07.2012 which were merely forwarded to the petitioner on 19.07.2012. It is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 made several futile efforts to have the claim released; however, respondents 3 and 4 did not honour the claim which amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and caused mental agony and harassment to the respondents 1 & 2. A consumer complaint was filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the District Forum which was contested by respondents 3 and 4. It was stated, by the respondent/ Bank by way of a written statement, that the formalities of filing all documents with the claim within 10 days of date of death had not been done and only documents were filed on 17.07.2012. It was stated that the insurance cover was an additional facility by the insurance company and there was no contract between or agreement between respondent 1 & 2 and respondent 3 & 4 and that the claim was to be settled by the insurance company. Hence, deficiency in service was denied. The insurance company/petitioner herein also denied the allegations and submitted in its written statement that the said Manoj Kumar had an accident insurance cover of Rs 2,00,000/- with it. It was denied that any transaction had been made with the debit card and as the death was within 42 days of the opening of the account, he was not entitled to any personal accident insurance coverage benefit. It was stated that though the death occurred on 18.11.2011, respondents 1 & 2 submitted the requisite papers to the petitioner insurance company after 243 days on 19.07.2012. In view of the delay, there was no liability on the petitioner to pay the claim. It is also stated that the policy of accident cover was applicable only if a successful payment transaction at any merchant outlet was made within 90 days prior to the incident which had not been proven. It was stated that the insurance cover ranged from Rs 2 lakhs to Rs 5 lakhs based on the kind of card and as no debit card had been submitted the claim could not be considered. Finally, it was stated that there was no privity of contract between respondent 1 and the petitioner and the claim having been rightfully repudiated, there was no deficiency in service as alleged.
The District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 24.09.2013 and directed the petitioner insurance company to pay the insurance amount of Rs 5 lakhs under the policy along with interest at 9% per annum from the due date till actual payment. Respondents 3 and 4 were directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs 10,000/- for mental harassment and litigation cost. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission through First Appeal No. 863 of 2013. This appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2014 on the grounds that the respondents 1 & 2 had approached the Bank in December 2011 and submitted all relevant documents such as the post mortem report, death certificate, copy of the FIR and other documents. They were advised to open a new account to transfer the balance in the account of the deceased which was done on 20.12.2011. These facts were not denied by the respondent 3/bank nor the fact that the requisite documents were submitted within the permissible time. The petitioner herein also did not deny having provided insurance coverage covering accidental death for Rs 5 lakhs. The State Commission held that “Merely because some prescribed forms were not filled up, cannot be a ground to repudiate the claim, particularly when at least the initial formalities were completed by the complainants”. This order has been impugned before us by the petitioner through the present revision petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record.
The petitioner has not denied that there was a personal accident insurance policy linked to the debit card issued by the respondent no 3/bank to the deceased son of respondents 1 and 2. However, it is their case that there was no privity of contract between the deceased card holder and the petitioner. It is also argued that the claim of insurance was filed very late by the bank and that the eligibility criteria of a valid transaction at a merchant outlet at least 90 days prior to the incident had not been met. It is therefore stated that the impugned order be set aside. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the lower fora have arrived at concurrent findings which have attained finality and that this Commission’s revisional jurisdiction is therefore limited. It is argued that the Bank has paid the lumpsum costs of Rs 10,000/- imposed on it by the State Commission for mental harassment and litigation cost. It is also argued that both the conditions of usage of the card and intimation to the bank within 60 days had been met. The card had been used for purchase of petrol worth Rs 100/- and Rs 9937/- had been transferred from another account. This has not been challenged by either the bank or petitioner.
From the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidences led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse. The foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held that:
“23. 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 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 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 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.”
Reiterating this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 held:
“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”
Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs and Ors vs N Madhava Rao and Ors, dated 05.04.2019 held as under:
“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”
This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.