AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
This Revision Petition No.1800 of 2017 was filed on 12.06.2017 challenging the impugned order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘State Commission’) dated 25.01.2017. Vide this order, the learned State Commission allowed the Appeal No. FA/36/2013 in part and modified the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling (‘District Forum’) dated 23.11.2012 and directed the Petitioner/OPs to pay Rs.10,00,800/- to the Respondent/Complainant with interest @ 8% p.a. thereupon from 20.04.2012 along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 40 days in filing the present Revision Petition. However, as per I.A. No.10178/2017, there is a delay of 44 days. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay is condoned.
The brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant purchased a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the OPs in respect of her residence (building and household goods). The risk covered by the policy was for Rs.11,12,000/- and the policy was valid from 26.08.2011 to 25.08.2012. On 20.04.2012, at about 1.30 AM a huge devastating fire broke out in the locality of the Complainant. As a result, the shop and buildings including the residence of the Complainant were totally gutted down. The Complainant could not save the household articles including important papers. The OP was informed of the loss and damages on the same day (20.04.2012) and the Sadar Police Station was informed on 26.04.2012. A claim was filed on 20.04.2012 along with necessary documents for Rs.11,12,000/- the maximum amount covered by the policy, though the loss she suffered was Rs. 50,00,000/-. During her visit to the Divisional Office of the OP, she came to know that the OP wanted to settle the claim for damages as made by the surveyor, without consideration of the papers submitted by her. The OPs committed deficiency in service by neglecting to settle the claim properly. Hence she filed a complaint in the District Forum. The complaint was challenged by the OPs that it was not maintainable in so far as she did not file any document which would substantiate the claim. A licensed Surveyor was appointed for investigation into the matter. Based on the survey report, the OP decided to offer compensation of Rs.1,85,897/- for the entire property loss. She was informed of the offer of assessed compensation. But she declined to accept the offer by filing necessary documents and instead, filed a complaint with unrealistic and exorbitant claims.
The District Forum vide its order dated 23.11.2012 partly allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/OPs jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant Rs.11,12,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 20.4.2012 till realization, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
On appeal, the State Commission vide its order dated 25.01.2017 partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum dated 23.11.2012 to the effect that the petitioners/OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,00,800/- to the Respondent/ Complainant with interest @ 8% p.a. thereupon from 20.04.2012 along with a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- as ordered by the District Forum. The direction of the District Forum to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- is expunged taking the award of interest itself for a compensation.
I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.
Admittedly, the Complainant purchased a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the OPs in respect of her residence (building and household goods) for Rs.11,12,000/- and the policy was valid from 26.08.2011 to 25.08.2012. On 20.04.2012, at about 1.30 AM a huge devastating fire broke out in their locality, as a result, her shop and buildings including the residence were totally gutted down. The Complainant could not save the house hold articles including important papers. The OP was informed of the loss and damages on 20.04.12. A claim was filed on 20.04.2012 along with necessary support documents for Rs.11,12,000/- which is the maximum amount covered by the policy, though the loss she suffered was about Rs. 50,00,000/-. The OP offered the amount of Rs.1,85,897/- as assessment made by the Surveyor.
Upon reviewing the pleadings and arguments presented, including the orders and reasoning of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission, I am aligned with the decisions of the learned District Forum and the State Commission, which issued well-reasoned orders based on evidence adduced, and determined that it would not be unrealistic to deduct some part of the total claim as the property including the household articles got depreciated over a substantial period from the date of taking the insurance coverage and therefore 10% deduction from the sum insured may not be fair. Therefore, the State Commission modified the District Forum's order to the effect that the Petitioners/OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,00,800/- to her with Rs.10,000 as litigation cost . This order is now being challenged at the revision stage.
It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers very limited scope on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional scope of this Commission is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 are clear. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, has held that:-
“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Similarly, in a recent the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was held that:-
As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.