AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Agrawal, President Member
The present Revision Petitions have been filed against the common Impugned Order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal Nos. 51 & 52 of 2019, whereby the State Commission had partly allowed the Appeals filed by Jaswant Rai Verma, the Complainant / Respondent herein, and directed the United Insurance Company, Opposite Party / Petitioner herein, to pay in each of the cases, a sum of ₹13,52,000/- being the IDV of the vehicles alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the original Complaint before the District Forum, i.e., 23.04.2009 besides compensation of ₹1 lakh towards mental agony and harassment together with cost of ₹35,000/- and set aside the Order dated 03.12.2018 passed in Complaint No. 572-573 of 2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the District Forum”) vide which the District Forum had dismissed the Consumer Complaints.
Since the question of facts and law involved in both the Revision Petitions, except minor variations, are similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 783 of 2022 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No. 572 of 2009 filed before the District Forum.
Succinctly put, the material facts arising out of the Revision Petition are that the Complainant purchased 6 Tippers from Telco Company on 13.03.2008 and got them insured from United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Insurance Company). The insurance was valid from 12.03.2008 till 11.03.2009. On 25.04.2008, two of the said six Trippers bearing Registration Nos. HP-12-C-0506 and HP-12-C-0509 were stolen from a place adjoining Malhotra Marble at Kiralpur (Nalagarh-Himachal Pradesh). Subsequently, a Complaint was lodged with the Police Station Nalagarh (HP) on 04.05.2008 vide Daily Station Diary No. 21(A). The Complainant informed the Insurance Company about the missing Tippers and submitted its claim on 05.05.2008. Since the claim was not settled by the Insurance Company, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint Nos. 572 and 573 of 2009 before the District Forum seeking claim of payment of ₹13,52,000/- as the value of the vehicle and compensation of ₹50,000/- along with interest and cost in each of the cases.
The Opposite Party Insurance Company contested the Complaint before the District Forum. It was submitted that Sh. D.S. Chadha was appointed as Investigator to assess and investigate the claim of the Complainant, who vide its Investigation Report dated 19.06.2008 recommended rejection of the claim on the ground that the claim was not maintainable since safety of the insured vehicle was not ensured and there was delay in intimating the Insurance Company which is in complete violation of Condition no 1 & 5 of the policy and clause 48(6) of the MV Act, 1988. It was submitted that relying upon the Investigator’s Report dated 19.06.2018, the Insurance Company rejected the Claim of the Complainant.
Upon consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum, vide Order dated 19.08.2010, allowed the Complaints and directed the Insurance Company to pay ₹13,52,000/- along with compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of ₹5,000/- in each of the cases.
Both the Parties filed Appeals, i.e., FA Nos. 392 & 393 of 2010 filed by the Complainant, FA Nos. 450 & 451 of 2010, being preferred by the Insurance Company before the State Commission, the State Commission vide common Order dated 28.03.2011 upheld the Order passed by the District Forum, however, reduced the cost from ₹1,00,000/- to ₹50,000/- in each case.
Being aggrieved by this Order, the Opposite Party Insurance Company preferred Revision Petitions, i.e., RP No. 2209-2212/2011 before this Commission. This Commission vide Order dated 06.12.2017, remanded the matters back to the District Forum to consider the case again in the light of the evidence on record.
On remand, the District Forum vide Order dated 03.12.2018, observing that the claims of the Complainant are untenable and dismissed the Consumer Complaints in following terms:-
“19] ……….The delay in the present case, as explained by the complainant and also taking into consideration the report of Investigator, is held to be not justified. The complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrong acts & omissions. The complainant should have taken proper care of his properly/vehicles. The complainant/insured cannot just after paying meager amount of premium for insurance, take the vehicle under insurance as granted and leave it without any care and supervision putting under great risk of damage or theft by miscreants. The insurance company, no doubt, is under solemn obligation to indemnify the loss, but that is only in case, who strictly comply with the terms & conditions of the insurance company.
The FIR with the Police concerned is not a mere formality.It is a necessary step to put the process in motion for investigation.If this connotation i.e. under mining the necessity of spontaneous report to the police is accepted, then the investigation authorities shall be a total failure to bring the culprit to book.
20] Keeping in view the entire facts and evidence on record, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the claim of the complainant is found to be untenable and hence the present complaint as well as the connected complaint case No.573/2009, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.”
Assailing the Order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the District Forum, the Complainant, filed First Appeal Nos. 51 and 52 of 2019 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide Impugned Order dated 28.02.2022 partly allowed the Appeals in aforementioned terms by observing as under:-
“6. At the outset, we would like to discuss the repudiation letter dated 21.01.2010, Annexure OP-11 wherein, it has been written as under:-
“....Reference your abovesaid claim. We would like to inform you that competent authority at Head Office has repudiated the above said claim on A/c of breach of policy condition no.1 to 5 as vehicles were parked in an open and unauthorized ground without any proper watch and ward for the safety of the vehicles and was not even noticed upto 9 days of its theft.
This is for your information pl. ”
Counsel for the appellant, in both these appeals, submitted that this document, Annexure OP-11 is fabricated/false, as neither it was supplied to the appellant nor produced on previous record. Reliance has been placed on orders dated 22.05.2017 and 31.10.2017 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petitions No.2209 to 2212 of 2011, wherein the repudiation certificate was not produced. We would like to reproduce the said orders:-
“……22.05.2017:- It appears from the record that the Complaint was filed even before the claim preferred by the Complainant had been repudiated.Since the said information is not available with the Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, we accede to his prayer for adjournment to enable him to ascertain the correct factual position on this aspect.If our apprehension is correct, then the original record, dealing with the claim in question, shall be produced for our perusal.We may note that the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company had submitted his final report/opinion to the Insurance Company vide his letter dated 19.06.2008 and the Complaint was filed sometime in April 2009.Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company shall also have instructions as to why there was enormous delay on the part of the Insurance Company in processing of the claim in question.
Part heard.List on 17.08.2017 for further hearing….”.
“…..31.10.2017:- There is a request for adjournment on behalf of the Petitioner Insurance Company on the ground that their Counsel Mr. A. K. De is in personal difficulty.Although, it is a part heard matter and was adjourned at the request of Mr. De on the last date of hearing to enable him to ascertain the factual position as to the ground on which the claim preferred by the Respondent was repudiated, yet in the interests of justice, we accede to the prayer for adjournment subject to the Petitioner Insurance Company’s paying to the Complainant a sum of ₹2,000/- as costs for today’s adjournment.The costs shall be paid before the next date of hearing.
List for final hearing on 06.12.2017.
On the next date of hearing, the original record dealing with the claim of the Respondent shall be produced for perusal of the Bench.……..”
Perusal of aforesaid orders reveals that nothing is mentioned that the said repudiation letter was supplied to the appellant either by hand or through post etc. Even during the trial of complaints bearing nos.572 and 573 of2009, which were disposed of on 19.08.2010, aforesaid repudiation letter was not produced on record. Surprisingly, the same was not produced before this Commission during the pendency of the appeals, referred to above, and the same was also not produced before the Hon’ble National Commission till 31.10.2017 i.e. for 7 years. Thus, the authenticity of this document is doubtful.
Perusal of orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by the District Commission reveals that the consumer complaints bearing nos. 572 and 573 of 2009 filed by the appellant were dismissed on the sole ground that the theft of the vehicles was reported to the police after delay of 9/10 days, which remained unexplained by the appellant. However, Counsel for the appellant contended with vehemence that he alongwith his brother is working as a construction contractors and at the time of theft, various works were under construction; and the vehicles were taken from the parking stands by different drivers. Thereafter, when it was noticed on 25.04.2008 that two vehicles are not lying parked, they wanted to verify and for this purpose, it took eight days i.e. from 25.04.2008 to 03.05.2008 and intimation was given to the police on 04.05.2008, by way of filing DDR/FIR.
Annexure C-3 is the FIR/DDR No.21 (A) dated 04.05.2008, wherein it is mentioned that on 25.04.2008 the appellant found that the vehicles in question are not lying parked at the parking stand. However, at that time, he thought that the vehicles have been taken by his brother Saroop Chand at the working site and after verification, it came to his notice that on 03.05.2008, the vehicles in question were not in possession of any of the workers or brother of the appellant nor the same were found parked at any of the working sites. Thus, the said FIR/DDR was lodged. We are of the considered view that in view of the nature of work of the appellant, delay of 9 days has been fully explained. He was having more than 6 vehicles. The vehicles were taken in the morning or as per the requirement of the work. Thus, it was appropriate for the appellant to first verify as to whether the vehicles have been taken by workers or his brother or not. In this view of the matter, we are fully satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant, in these cases, for small delay of 9 days in filing DDR in the matter. The District Forum fell into grave error in dismissing the complaints while holding to the contrary.
Accordingly, the orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by the District Commission in consumer complaints bearing no.572 and 573 of 2009 being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, suffer from illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission and the same stand set aside.”
10 Being aggrieved, challenging the Impugned Order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner Insurance Company has filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission seeking following reliefs:-
“(a) set aside and quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 of the Ld. State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in F.A. No. 51 of 2019 and F.A. No. 52 of 2019;
(b) stay the effect and operation of the impugned judgment/order dated 28.02.2022 of the Ld. State Commission.
c) call for the records of the case, if necessary.
d) pass other and further order(s) that this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Mr. A.K. De, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Insurance Company submitted that State Commission had failed to appreciate that the Complainant had intimated the incident to the Police or the Insurance Company only after 9 / 10 days of the incident. The delay in reporting the theft of the vehicle deprived the Petitioner Insurance Company of a valuable right to investigate and to trace the vehicle. The Complainant had failed to ensure safety of the vehicles by parking them at a place un-attended. The Complainant had violated condition nos. 1 & 5 of the Insurance Policy. It was prayed that the Impugned Order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the State Commission should be set aside because the State Commission had failed to deal with any of the reasons given by the District forum and the Revision Petitions be allowed in terms of the prayer clause.
Per contra, Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent herein, supported the Impugned Order 28.02.2022 passed by the State Commission as according to her the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order which is based on a correct and rightful appreciation of evidence and material available on record and does not call for any interference
I have heard Mr. A.K. De, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party/Petitioner herein, Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants/Respondent, perused the material available on record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.
The submissions made by Mr. A.K. De, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Insurance Company, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that while passing the Impugned Order dated 28.02.2022, the State Commission had considered all the material evidence on record and there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission. Further, there is no misreading of any evidence material on record and all the material in evidence which was placed before the State Commission has been considered. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (under section 58(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [supra] is reproduced as under:-
“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. .....”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Order passed by the State Commission. Consequently, both the Revision Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.