Ravi Shanker Jaiswal vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ravi Shanker Jaiswal, against the order dated 16.11.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.868/2008.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner is the owner of jeep No.UP66/3545. The same was insured by the opposite party/respondent for a period of 6.12.2001 to 5.12.2002 vide policy bearing No.3142110027418. Premium of Rs.8007/- was also paid for the insurance. Jeep met with accident on 08.1.2002 and the same was informed to the opposite party on the same day. Insurance claim was lodged with the opposite party, however, the same was not paid.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that the jeep of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and during the currency of the policy the jeep met with an accident and the intimation was sent to the Insurance Company. Insurance Company appointed a surveyor, who did not finally submit his report as he was demanding money from the complainant and the complainant did not give that money to him. The complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mirzapur, (in short 'the District Forum') where opposite party Insurance Company denied having received the intimation of accident and also denied that any surveyor was appointed for assessment of the loss. The District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint No.54 of 2006 and the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum.

Both the fora below have dismissed the complaint basically on the ground that no FIR was lodged in the matter and the Insurance Company had denied the receipt of the intimation/claim and even having appointed a surveyor. The learned counsel argued that the intimation letter dated 08.10.2002 was given to the Insurance Company in their office and its receipt was acknowledged by putting the seal of the Insurance Company on the complainant's copy and the same was filed along with complaint. The Insurance Company has not disputed the seal. However, they have denied the receipt of that letter. Both the fora below have not given any importance to the seal put by the Insurance Company on the complainant's copy of the intimation letter. Filing of an FIR is not mandatory for the policy to be invoked and therefore, the claim cannot be denied on the basis of not filing the FIR. It was requested that both the fora below have erroneously dismissed the complaint and therefore, on the basis of the clear evidence that the intimation letter was received by the Insurance Company, the claim be considered and the revision petition may be allowed.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. It is seen that no FIR has been filed in the matter and therefore, it is difficult to clearly establish the date of accident particularly, at a time when the Insurance Company is denying receipt of any intimation from the petitioner. The Insurance Company is also denying appointment of the surveyor in the matter. Though the petitioner is alleging that the surveyor demanded some money from the complainant, he could not produce any evidence in this regard. He has also not produced any communication from the surveyor or from the Insurance Company seeking any information or document from the complainant. This clearly establishes that there is no communication between the complainant and the Insurance Company or the surveyor.

The genuinity of the claim and the accident could have been established, had there been a FIR in the matter. It is true that in certain accident cases, where no FIR has been lodged, but the claims are settled by the Insurance Company but generally in such cases, the repairs are undertaken by the repairer on the advice of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. In the present case, no such document has been filed which shows that there were such agreement or communication between the surveyor and the repairer. Thus, prima facie the genuinity of the accident is doubtful. Moreover, both the fora below have dismissed the complaint on the basis of the common finding of facts. As the facts cannot be reassessed when there are concurrent finding of facts and the scope under the revision petition becomes very limited in such matters as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-

(1) Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the 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."

(2) Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the following:

"23. 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."

Relying on the above authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission. Given the concurrent finding of facts, and no legal issue has been raised in the present revision petition, I do not find any opportunity to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.

From the above examination, I find that there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine.