AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
This Revision Petition No. 61 of 2022 challenges the impugned order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) dated 06.09.2021. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No.278 of 2021 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagaur (Raj.) (‘the District Forum’) dated 09.02.2021.
As per the Report of the Registry, there is 39 days delay in filing of this Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the IA/728/2022, the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he was the owner of vehicle No. RJ37-CA-5519 which was Insured vide Policy No.1413023115P109330608 from 09.11.2015 to 08.11.2016 with the Opposite Party (OP) Insurer and paid premium for Insured Declared Value of Rs.5,51,000/-. Before granting insurance cover, the OP had not provided any terms and conditions and no prospectus was issued. The said vehicle had met with an accident on 20.03.2016 at SS Nagar and sustained extensive damages. He filed the claim with OP along with all relevant documents. However, the claim was repudiated on account of non-production of the Driving Licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.
In reply, OP admitted insuring the said vehicle from 09.11.2015 to 08.11.2016. After insuring the vehicle, the insurance policy was issued to the insured in original along with the terms and conditions. The Complainant informed OP regarding the accident of his vehicle RJ37-CA-5519 on 20.03.2016 at SS Nagar, in which the name of the driver was shown as Tara Chand. However, in the statement of Bhanwar Lal, who lodged the FIR, the name of driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was stated to be Anil Kumar. Thus, the OP asked the Complainant to produce the copy of driving licence of Anil Kumar. But, the Complainant had not produced copy of driving licence of Anil Kumar. Due to which the OP repudiated the claim of the Complainant. OP exhibited no deficiency in service.
The learned District Forum vide order dated 09.02.2021, allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party as under:
“Hence, the complaint submitted by the complainant Tara Chand under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is accepted and the opposite party United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed that it has to pay amount of Rs.1,84,451/- (one lac eighty four thousand four hundred fifty one) as calculated by the surveyor on account of amount of claim for accident vehicle within period of two months and also pay interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual recovery on the aforesaid amount. Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) as bodily and mental compensation from the opposite party and Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) as complaint expenses.”
(Extracted from translated copy)
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 06.09.2021 directed as follows:
“It is true that in FIR which was lodged by Bhanwarlal wherein the name of driver was mentioned as Anil but during police investigation it was found that driver was Tarachand though Anil was co-traveller in the vehicle but as per investigation he has driven the vehicle only upto Nagaur thereafter at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by Tarachand who was owner himself. Not only this in reply of the notice issued by the investigation officer during investigation of police case Tarachand admitted himself as driver at the time of accident and after investigation police also filed charge sheet against Tarachand considering him driver at the time of accident and it is not disputed that Tarachand was having valid and effective driving licence. Considering all these facts the learned DCF rightly allowed the complaint which does not require any interference.
Accordingly, the appeal devoid merits which is hereby dismissed.”
The learned counsel for the Petitioners reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Complainant had not produced driving license of Mr. Anil Kumar, who was driving the vehicle and the repudiation of claim was justified as per terms of the insurance policy. He has relied upon the following judgments:
(a) CPJ 2014 (3) 373 New India Insurance Company;
(b) 2014 (3) 379 Puneet Phutela Vs. Oriental Ins. Co.;
(c) CPJ 2014 (3) 508 Alok Vaghe Vs. Bajaj Allianz Ins. Co.;
(d) CPR 2011 (2)30 LIC Vs. Rependra Kaur;
(e) United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19;
(f) DN Bhadoni Vs Oriental Ins Co Ltd., 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC);
(g) Garg Acrylics Ltd Vs United India Ins Co Ltd 2015(1) CPR 273 (NC);
(h) Oriental Ins Co Ltd Vs Ishwar Singh, 2015(1)CPR157 (NC);
(i) Shankarlal Virii Thakkar Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., 2015 (1) CPR 821 (NC);
(j) New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balaji Exporium, 1 (2015) CPI 588 (NC).
The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission.
I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.
The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision 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.
In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-
“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 order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has 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 deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 09.02.2021 is modified to the extent that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded on account of mental agony is set aside in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.