State Bank Of India vs Deepak Kumar Sain & Anr.

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.31 of 2020 filed by the petitioner whereby the order dated 11.06.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur Forth (for short "the District Forum") in CC/815/2017 was confirmed and the Appeal was dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1 is the nominee of Smt. Vijay Laxmi who took two policies from the Respondent No.2 (Opposite Party No.2 in the complaint), hereinafter be referred as "Insurance Company", New Jeevan Anand and Jeevan Laxya bearing no.199951789 and 478119856 respectively and the monthly premium was Rs. 1355/- and Rs. 806/-. The policies were of the value of Rs. 2 Lakh each. During the validity of the insurance policies, the policy holder Smt. Vijay Laxmi died on 02.10.2016. Respondent no.1, hereinafter be referred as "complainant" when approached the Insurance Company, was informed that the policies had expired on account of default in payment of premium for the month of August 2016. On enquiry, the complainant learnt that the Petitioner, who had been issued the directions to make the payments of the premiums every month through ECS, had defaulted in paying the premium amounts of the two policies for the month of August 2016, which resulted in cancellation of the policies on account of such default. Aggrieved by the said act of the Petitioner, complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum sent the notices of the Complaint both to the Insurance Company and the Petitioner Bank. The Petitioner Bank, however, ignored the summons of the District Forum and did not attend the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte. It is pertinent to note that they have not put up any defence relating to the allegation of the Complainant that the policies had expired on account of the fault on the part of the Petitioner who did not send the premium amount to the Insurance Company despite availability of the funds in the account. A communication was sent to the Petitioner Bank and the Petitioner Bank had duly replied the same vide letter dt.01.05.2017. In this letter, the Petitioner Bank has clearly admitted that although the amount of Rs. 14,000/- was available in the account, yet under some mistake, the Petitioner withhold the said amount and did not pay the premium. It has been revealed in that letter by the Petitioner Bank that it has been further revealed in the said letter by the petitioner although the loan amount was cleared and no loan was due qua the account through which the premiums for the policies were to be sent, yet due to some banking miscommunication, proper closing of the loan account could not be communicated to the concerned Branch. The letter reads as under:

"In reference to your letter, this is to inform you that on 08.08.2016, there was a hold of Rs. 14,000/- in your account, due to which the ECS has been bounced back. The said hold was active by the system due to non-payment/recovery of your monthly instalment of Rs. 7,000/- from 01.07.2016 to 01.08.2016 in your personal loan account No.6127593998. In the said account, you had deposited the amount, but due to non-closure of the loan account properly, the system had applied the hold of the monthly instalment. Due to which, due to the non-sufficient available balance, the ECS got bounced."

I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsel and have also perused the relevant record.

The findings of the District Forum and the State Commission are based on the evidences led by the Complainant as well as the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that even though, the Petitioner has not put up any defence, yet it was the duty of the Foras below to go through the defence of the Insurance Company and consider the same. It is argued that the Insurance Company has clearly stated that after the policies were bounced, the policy holder was duly informed of the default in payment of the premium amount for the month of August 2016 and even messages on the mobile were also sent, yet the policy holder did not take any appropriate steps and therefore, the fault lies with the deceased policy holder alone and for her default, the Petitioner cannot be burdened.

This argument of learned Counsel has no merit. The facts proved on record clearly shows that the Petitioner had defaulted in discharge of their duties assigned to them without any valid reason and this has caused undue loss and mental harassment to the Complainant. The Petitioner cannot skip the consequences of its act by shifting the burden upon other persons. At the first instance, it was the duty of the Petitioner to regularly make the payments of the premium amount when the amount was available in the account. The argument of learned Counsel does not inspire any confidence and has no merit in the light of the facts of this case. The District Forum after perusing all the evidences on record led by the Complainant and evidences of Insurance Company reached to the conclusion. The State Commission also, after re-ascertaining and re-appreciating the evidences on record, confirmed the order of the District Forum. There are thus concurrent findings of the fact by the Fora below.

The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous cases including "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269" that it can only set aside the concurrent finding of facts of Foras below if it is perverse, i.e., not based on cogent evidences on record or where the Foras below have exceeded its jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"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".

Again in "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

"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."

In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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."

In the present case, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the order. The order is based on the cogent evidences on record including the letter dated 01.05.2017 of the Petitioner, which is a sort of admission on the part of the Petitioner.

In view of the above, I found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.