United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr vs S. Narayanan

Arguments heard. In the interest of justice, the delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

In brief, the facts are that the complainant is the owner of the crane and it was insured with the petitioner. During the subsistence of the contract of insurance, according to the complainant when it was in use on 2.2.2011 and lifting the boat from the seawater to the land side, the lifting hook fixed with the boat got broken and the crane jerked and as a result it fell down into the water and was damaged. He informed the petitioner about the incident and after its repair submitted the repair bills of the crane alongwith the claim with the respondent. His claim was, however, repudiated on the ground that the policy did not cover the damage to the crane on account of its overturn, and for insuring the damage to the crane due to overturn, an additional premium of 5% was required to be paid which the respondent did not pay and hence the claim was not covered under the policy. This plea of the petitioner was dismissed by the District Forum on the basis of evidence led before it and the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.4,39,624/-. The money incurred by the respondent towards repair of the crane and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards cost.

The petitioner challenged the said order of the District Forum by way of an appeal No.FA/101/2014 before the State Commission and raised the same contention that the damage caused to the crane was due to overturning and it was not covered under the existing policy. The State Commission after re-assessing and re-evaluating and discussing the evidence led by the parties, reached to the conclusion that the damage had not been caused due to simple over turning of the crane but it had occurred since the hook which was used for lifting the boat, got broken when the crane was used for the purpose of lifting the boat and as a result, crane had fallen into the seawater and got damaged.

Before us, these findings have been impugned. It is argued that these findings are wrong and that the damage had occurred due to overturning of the crane. Besides that it is also argued that the Fora below have awarded the actual expenses incurred by the respondent and had not considered the report of the Surveyor, who had recommended the claim of Rs.2,13,049/- after considering the depreciation of the parts which got damaged and hence there is an illegality in the impugned order.

We have heard arguments and perused the relevant records. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"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."

It is apparent that this Commission has no jurisdiction to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence and thereafter reach to a different conclusion on the facts of the case. Both the Fora below have concluded by appreciating the evidences led before them, that the damage caused to the crane was due to the result of its hook being broken while lifting the boat and as a result it had overturned. The contention of the petitioner was rejected. In view of this concurrent finding of the facts and in view of the limitated jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act, it cannot be said that the findings of fact which are based on the evidences before the Fora below are wrong. This Commission cannot judge whether the findings of facts are wrong or right. It can interfere in the finding of facts where it is based on no evidence. Petitioner had relied on the surveyor report but has not examined the Surveyor. Moreover, the police report is also there which has been considered. Therefore, the findings are based on the evidences and it is not the case where no evidence was on record.

The next argument of the learned counsel is that the report of the Surveyor is to be given respect and should be considered and should not be rejected and that Foras below have acted illegally while doing so that too without giving any reason for the same. We have given thoughtful consideration to this argument of the learned counsel as well. No doubt the report of the Surveyor has value but it is not sacrosanct and not binding. It is clear that the Surveyor has not been examined. It is also clear that the Surveyor report is based on the assumptions. The Fora below have awarded the money which had been spent by the respondent on getting the crane repaired and workable.

We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present revision petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost.