AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Member
This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails order dated 16.10.2019 of the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No. 2204 of 2011 filed against order dated 17.03.2012.
The State Commission has held that:
i. “The appeal is hereby partly allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
ii. The impugned order passed by the 3rd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore in CC no. 1725 of 2010 dated 24.06.2011 is hereby modified as follows:
iii. The complaint is allowed directing the insurance company to settle the claim of the loan amount to the extent of Rs.10,06,842.76 with interest up to 06.03.2007 to the appellant bank within three months from the date of this order.
iv. Similarly, the appellant/ OP – 2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to the complainant/ respondent no.1 within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which, it shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default, till actual payment.
v. The complainant is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and a cost of Rs.10,000/- which has to be shared equally by the appellant/ OP no.2 and respondent no.2/ OP no.1.
vi. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Forum for the reimbursement”.
The petitioner is before us with the prayer to:
i. (a) Set aside the final order and judgment dated 22.11.2016 passed by the learned Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. Appeal no. 2204 of 2011 titled as Bank of India vs T S Prasanna.
ii. (b) Award costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent throughout; and / or
iii. (c ) pass such other and/ or further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In brief, the facts are that respondent 1 had obtained a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy to cover all loanees of Home Loans from the respondent-bank by paying a subscription on their behalf. Respondent no. 2 had, jointly with his wife, availed a housing loan of Rs. 12 lakhs on 25.10.2002 from the respondent no.1. The wife of the respondent no. 2 expired in a road accident on 07.03.2007. This fact was informed on 29.05.2009 by respondent no. 2 to respondent no.1 with the request to process the same for claiming the insurance amount. The claim was acknowledged as received on 28.06.2009 by the bank and the insurance company (petitioner) on 13.07.2009. However, the petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim was inordinately delayed by over 2 years. Respondent no. 2 approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘District Forum’) in CC No. 10/1725 which allowed the complaint on 24.06.2011 and ordered as below:
“The complaint is allowed. It is held that the 2nd opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The 2nd opposite party is directed to waive principal amount and the interest payable by the wife of the complainant, i.e., Rs.7,19,740/-. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to the complainant which was wrongly collected by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is granted 30 days’ time from this date to comply this order. If not complied by then, the said amount of Rs.2,95,000/- shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default, until actual payment.”
We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.
The lower fora have arrived at concurrent findings based on the evidence on record. No illegality or perversity is brought out in the order of the District Forum by the State Commission which has partly allowed the appeal on cost and modified the order of the District Forum. The respondent no. 2/insurance company has been directed by the District Forum to settle the claim with interest up to 06.03.2007 and the respondent 1/bank directed to refund Rs 2,95,000/- to the complainant/respondent no. 2 along with compensation and costs. There are thus concurrent findings on facts that the complainant/respondent no. 2 was entitled to the claim for death by accident under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy covering all borrowers. The issue of delay in preferring the claim was considered and a detailed finding was recorded accepting the information of the date of death with effect from 07.03.2007, duly considering the averment of the revision petitioner that the death of the insured had been conveyed to the petitioner only vide latter dated 29.05.2009. The respondent no 2 also requested the petitioner/bank to furnish account details on 23.04.2010 stating that the death of the co-loanee had been conveyed in September 2007 and the statement of accounts issued from 21.10.2002 to 16.11.2011 by the petitioner indicating the name of the co-loanee Smt Suma as “deceased”.
The State Commission has recorded that:
“In the circumstances, the District Forum was right in placing reliance on the application of the complainant to come to the conclusion what the complainant had informed the date of death of his wife on 08.03.2007 by asking the appellant bank to forward his claim under the policy. In the circumstances, it was not proper for the insurance company to repudiate the claim on the ground of delay. On the other hand, advocate for the appellant is placing reliance on the letter of the complainant himself which is dated 29.05.2009. The appellant is placing reliance on the contents of this letter wherein the complainant had stated that he could not apply/ inform for squaring of loan amount immediately after the death of his wife. On the other hand, another letter of the complainant which is dated 23.04.2010 addressed to the appellant bank indicated that he had informed the bank regarding death of his wife in September 2007 itself. On the basis of this, the certificate came to be issued by the appellant bank in this regard. In the circumstances, the statement of complainant that he wrote a letter again to the opposite party Bank on 29.05.2009 at the say of the appellant bank officials for squaring of housing loan has to be accepted. In the circumstances, the recitals in the letter of the complainant dated 29.05.2009 cannot be base to repudiate the claim of the complainant in this regard.”
And
After perusal of the impugned order, the District Forum has directed the appellant bank to waive of the amount and to refund the amount along with compensation and costs. But there is no order at all as against the OP no.1 the New India Assurance Company. The District Forum has held that the OP no.2/ appellant is entitled to proceed against the insurance company in terms of the insurance policy according to law for the purpose of reimbursement of the amount. According to us, it will be multiplicity of proceedings. However, the appellant bank has addressed a letter to the insurance coopmany on 26.06.2009 to settle the claim under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy in respect of the complainant by stating to the fact that the balance as on the date of death was Rs.10,06,842.76 with interest up to 06.03.2007. This amount has to be reimbursed by the insurance company to the loan account of the complainant to the appellant Bank. Similarly, the appellant bank is also liable to refund a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to the complainant which was wrongly collected by it along with compensation and costs. In the circumstances, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly since the reliefs that are to be granted are to be modified.
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. Interference with concurrent findings of the fora below is justified only on grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Perversity can be concluded in findings when they are based on either evidence that has not been produced or on conjectures/ 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 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.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta - (2011) 11 SCC 269 (supra), 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 SCC 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.”
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed dealing with all contentions of the petitioner and arriving at findings based on evidence on record.
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. We therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.