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, Panchkula (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 656 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015 arising out of order dated 20.06.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 141 of 2011.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that the respondent/complainant is the owner of a rock breaker worth Rs 14,46,635/- which he had insured with the petitioner for the period 08.12.2009 t0 07.12.2010. On 21.03.2010 the Rock Breaker was stolen from the area of village Kheri Battar, Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani district. A complaint was lodged with the Police Station, Sadar, Dadri on 21.03.2010 vide Daily Diary Receipt (DDR) No. 22. The loss claim was repudiated by the petitioner on 20.05.2010 on the ground that the machine had been deployed in a hilly area/quarry which was an excluded area as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the police complaint was filed after 4 days. According to the petitioner, the District Forum wrongly upheld the claim of the respondent/complainant in Consumer Complaint No. 141 of 2011. His appeal before the State Commission was disallowed and the order of the State Commission affirmed. He has impugned this order in this revision petition before this Commission and prayed for setting aside of the order of the State Commission dated 04.02.2015 in FA No. 656 of 2014.
The petitioner’s grounds for revision are that the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Tractors Plan and Machinery Policy was obtained in Gurgaon and the respondent had lodged a claim with the petitioner’s Regional Office in Chennai which was denied. It is contended that the policy covered machinery and equipment subject to specific terms and conditions including non-deployment in mines and hilly terrain whereas the theft was alleged at the worksite in a hilly quarry and therefore was not covered by the policy, since no written request 7 days prior for its deployment had been provided. It is also contended that the alleged theft was reported after a delay of 4 days to the police which was also a breach of the terms and conditions. The case of the petitioner is that the State Commission failed to consider that the District Forum had failed to give any specific finding on the petitioner’s defence based on the terms of the policy and that the State Commission, instead of remanding the matter to the forum below, proceeded on its own assumption that the policy cover note dated 26.02.2011 did not disclose the details of the policy to the respondent contrary to the IRDA’s guidelines. It is also stated that the report of the Surveyor under section 64 UM of the Insurance act, 1938 has been ignored.
Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the Surveyor’s report was erroneous since his findings noted that:
“a) The rock breaker, in reference, is used for breaking rocks from mountain/stone quarries.
… In this case the rock breaker was used at the quarry and hence as per the above exclusion, the loss was not covered in scope of policy.”
It is argued that the conclusion of the surveyor that the Rock Breaker was deployed in a hilly area was misconceived and appears based on the basis of photographs taken which convey an incorrect impression of the location. It was also argued that the condition of location of deployment with prior intimation was concerned with the issue of damage to the machinery and not with regard to its theft. He also argued that he had informed the police in time and cannot be faulted for the delay in the registration of the case by the Police Station. It was contended that the order of the District Forum was in order and was rightly upheld by the State Commission.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. On behalf of the petitioner it was argued as per the written submissions filed on 22.02.2023. It was contended that the award of the full cost of the machinery without deducting 1% as excess claim was incorrect. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Rock Breaker of worth Rs.14,46,635/- purchased from M/s Cargo Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., and was insured with the respondent vide policy no. EY0003332000100 for the period 08.12.2009 to 07.12.2010 was stolen on 17.03.2010 and necessary formalities were completed. The repudiation of the claim on 20.05.2010 was without giving any reasonable ground illegally and arbitrarily. Learned counsel for the respondent alleges that as the respondent was residing in District Bhiwani and the Rock Breaker was stolen from the jurisdiction of Police Station (Sadar), Dadri District, Bhiwani, the cause of action arose at District Bhiwani.
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.
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.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SC 269 dated 18.03.2011 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 dated 02.08.2016 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.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2019 in the case of T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 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.”
The foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before me in this revision petition. It is also seen that the orders of these fora are 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.
I, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.