New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Harak Chandra Flour Mills Ltd

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh ( in short, the State Commission) whereby Appeal No. 2602 of 2015 of the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 02.011.2015 in complaint no. 189 of 2013 was dismissed.

It is argued that findings of the Fora below, that respondent had not left the scooter unattended and had, therefore, not violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, is contrary to the evidence on record and report of the surveyor has not been considered.

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

The jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21 (b) of the Act is limited. The Commission is not required to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidences led by the parties to prove the facts of its case and then reach to different opinion. It cannot also be permitted to judge whether findings on the facts of the Fora below are right or wrong unless it is shown that those findings are not based on the evidences on record to reach to the said conclusion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 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 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."

In the present case, the admitted facts are that employee of the respondent withdrew a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and he kept it in the dicky of the scooter. He needed to collect some envelope from a shop and so he parked the scooter near the shop and went to collect the envelope and as soon as he returned to the place where he had parked the scooter, he found the dicky of the scooter open and cash missing. He immediately lodged the police report and also informed the respondent, his employer and the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner before the Fora below was that by parking the scooter on the roadside and leaving it there to collect the envelope from a shop amounts to leaving the scooter unattended and thereby leaving the cash in the scooter unattended and, therefore, he had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The Fora below on the basis of evidence on record which stand proved reached to the conclusion that there was no violation of the terms of the policy on behalf of the respondent. The District Forum has held as under:

"However, it becomes clear from the first information report that he parked the scooter near a shop and went to collect an envelope after collecting it as soon as he turned he saw that the Diggi of the scooter was open and bag was missing. Therefore, in the light of the present incident it cannot be said that the scooter was left unattended or that it was left at an unsecure place. The insurance company also claims that the facts has been manipulated but there is no truth in the said claim. The facts stated in the First Information Report as well as the letter dated 20.04.2012 sent to the Insurance Company are the same. The first information report was filed by the employee of the complainant on the same day on which the incident happened. But due to the failure to catch the culprit, the police issued a final report. Therefore, it cannot be said that the facts stated by the complainant with respect to the incident are not true."

The same contentions of the petitioner has been dealt by the State Commission. The State Commission has held as under:

"The claim of the complainant could not be rejected merely because the theft had occurred due to scooter was left unattended. As per the plea of the respondent as well as the first information report, it becomes clear that at the time of the theft the respondent was standing merely 5-7 steps away from the scooter, when the employee of the bank was standing near Kishan Pan Wala's Shop after the withdrawal of the money. In the meanwhile the bag containing the money was stolen. In fact the surveyor who was appointed by the Insurance Company didn't find during his investigation that the scooter was left unattended at an isolated place. Even the investigation report issued by the insurance company neither mention that the scooter was left at an isolated place nor does the investigation report any where state that the Respondent went far away from the scooter. In such a circumstance, the finding of the District Commission that the scooter was not left unattended was not wrong. Moreover, the argument raised by the Appellant that the District Commission passed the said order without taking into consideration the investigation report is also unacceptable. The impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration the investigation report, but the Appellant has not produced any evidence to support the finding of the investigation report."

We find no reasons to interfere with the findings of fact by the Fora below. The fact that he had just moved 5-7 steps away from the scooter when theft had taken place, demolishes the argument that he left the scooter unattended. Also the scooter was being parked at a public place and was not left at an isolated place. The petitioner has failed to show that there is any miscarriage of justice or there is wrong exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the Fora below. Revision Petition has no merit and same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.