United India Insurance CO. LTD. & 2 Ors vs Rajesh Jhajharia

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member

ORAL

IA No. 15387/2019 (condonation of delay)

There is a delay of 11 days in filing the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Revision Petition No.2094/2019

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2019 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was partly allowed and petitioner was directed to pay the compensation on non-standard basis @ 75% of the sum insured.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) insured his vehicle with the petitioner company and during the existence of the insurance policy his vehicle was stolen. He lodged the FIR with the police station and also informed the petitioner. A surveyor was appointed who gave his report. The petitioner company rejected the claim vide repudiation letter dated 19.09.2017 for the reasons given therein.

Aggrieved by said act of the petitioner, the complainant filed the claim. Both the parties led their evidences before the District Forum. After hearing the arguments, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that the repudiation was wrong and issued the following directions :

Complaint of the complainant is accepted against opposite parties jointly and severally. Opposite parties are directed that they are to pay Rs.13,40,000/- (Rupees thirteen lack forty thousand) insured amount of the vehicle to the complainant within one month with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint along with this opposite parties to pay Rs.21,000/- (rupees twenty one thousand) to the complainant on account of mental agony and Rs.11,000/- (rupees eleven thousand) on account of complaint expenses. Amounts of mental agony and complaint expenses if not paid by the opposite parties within one month then complainant will be also entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till payment on the aforesaid amount. Decision is dictated and pronounced today on 1.10.2018.

Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record ordered that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant was wrong and that it amounts to deficiency in service. The State Commission, however, after relying on the judgement of this Commission in IV (2017) CPJ 411 (NC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. -vs- Binod Kumar Singh, granted relief to the complainant on the basis of non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the payable insured amount and issued the following directions :

Keeping in view the principles decided by the Hon'ble National Commission, complainant should be paid 75% claim. In such situation it is proper to allow 75 % of Rs.13,40,000/-, Rs.10,05,000/-. It is proper to keep the rest of the order as it is.

Hence, the order which has been given by the learned District Forum for Rs.13,40,000/-, in place of that amount is made Rs.10,05,000/- (in words Rs.Ten Lakh Five Thousand) and rest of the order will remain as it is.

Aggrieved by these directions, the present revision petition has been filed. It is argued by the learned counsel that the findings are of the fora below regarding the deficiency in service is illegal and is not supported by any evidence on record and that grant of compensation on non-standard basis is also wrong.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. There are concurrent findings on the issue of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner regarding rejection of the claim of the complainant. These findings are based on the evidences led by the parties before the District Forum and re-appreciated and re-assessed by the State Commission. In the case of In "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that this Commission has no jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act to re-appreciate and re-assess the findings on record and then substitute its own opinion on the same sets of facts. The Hon'ble 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:

"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."

This Commission can, thus interfere with the order in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of CP Act, of the fora below has exceeded its jurisdiction or if there is any material irregularity or miscarriage of justice. There is concurrent find of fact of deficiency in service based on evidences.

The learned counsel for the petitioner fails to point out any fact on record which was there and not considered by the fora below. Since evidence on the issue of deficiency in service, is based on the evidences led by the parties, no ground to interfere with the order passed by the fora below is made out. As regards the grant of compensation to the complainant on non-standard basis is concerned, the Order of the State Commission is duly supported by the order of this Commission in the case of IV (2017) CPJ 411 (NC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. -vs-Binod Kumar Singh.

I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The present revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.