Vide the present revision petition, the petitioner, who was opposite party No.2 in complaint No.168/2017 filed by respondent No.1, has challenged the order dated 23^rd July, 2018 in First Appeal No.714/2018 whereby his appeal

-2-

against the order of the District Forum dated 6^th February, 2018, was dismissed. The impugned order is challenged on two grounds firstly that the complainant had not raised any claim from them and secondly that since the vehicle was insured with two insurance companies, both the insurance companies had to contribute towards the loss and the petitioner cannot be held solely liable to redeem the loss.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had bought a truck which he insured with the petitioner for the period 11^th May, 2015 to 10^th May, 2016. He had alleged that in the month of April, 2016, he presumed that the validity of the insurance with the petitioner had expired. He had further alleged that he had lost the policy issued by the petitioner and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to verify whether the policy was valid or not. Thinking that the policy period had expired, he purchased another policy on 23^rd April, 2016 from respondent No.2 i.e. National Insurance Co. His truck caught fire in an accident on 29^th April, 2016 and he lodged DD report No.19 on the same very day with P.S. Sadar, Sonepat. His case is that he informed both respondent No.1 & 2 about this fact and filed a claim to the tune of Rs.16,26,055/-. When his claim was not considered, he served a legal notice upon respondent No.2, who in its reply submitted that there was no liability to redeem the loss on its part since the vehicle was already insured with the petitioner and that the second policy of the same vehicle could not be issued because of the existing insurance

-3-

 policy which was valid and that the petitioner solely was responsible to indemnity the loss. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice dated 10^th March, 2017 to the petitioner claiming payment of Rs.16,26,055/- but it was not replied by the petitioner. The petitioner had taken the stand before the District Forum that since they were not informed of the accident, they could not do the investigation to go into the actual value of the alleged damage and that since the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company, the insurance company is also liable equally.

After perusing the evidences of the parties and hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the District Forum rejected the contentions of the petitioner and has held as under: -

“We have perused both the insurance policies issued by respondent No.1 and 2 in respect of the complainant’s vehicle. The vehicle was insured for the period w.e.f. 23.4.2016 to 22.4.2017. with National Insurance Co. Ltd. with IDV of Rs.11,20,000/- and the vehicle was also insured with respondent no.1 Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. w.e.f. 11.5.2015 to 10.5.2016 with IDV of Rs.11,97,000/-. So, we failed to understand how the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.16,26,055/- particularly when the IDV of vehicle, is not more than Rs.11,97,000/-.

Further we have perused the surveyor report of R.S. Kohli marked as J.C./R-1 vide which he has assessed the net loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.8,57,000/-. We have carefully perused this report of the surveyor. Moreover, initially the claim was lodged with the respondent No.1 National Insurance Co. Ltd. by the complainant. During the investigation, it came to the notice that the present vehicle bearing No. HR-69B-7662 was insured with Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. After receiving information from the investigator, the respondent no.1 intimated the respondent No.2 that

-4-

 the vehicle no. HR-69B-7662 was initially insured with Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and the respondent no.1 also handed over the investigation report, surveyor report and other relevant documents to the respondent no.2. To prove this fact, the respondent no.1 placed on record the document Annexure R-1 and from this document, it is proved that on dated 1.3.2007 the respondent No.2 official received the relevant documents from the respondent no.1. In the written statement and affidavit, the respondent no.2 has mentioned that they have received the information regarding the damage in the vehicle through legal notice dated 16.3.2017. In this way, the respondent No.2 is telling a lie and has disclosed incorrect facts before this Forum also which proves from the document Annexure R-1. Thus, we find that the respondent no.2 Cholamandalam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd. is liable to make the payment of Rs.9,69,000/- (i.e. to deduct Rs.1,50,000/- as salvage value and Rs.1000/- under excess clause from the IDV of Rs.11,20,000/-). The respondent  No.2 is hereby directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

The perusal of both the insurance policies shows that the vehicle HR-69B-7662 was financed with Cholamandalam Investment Finance Co. Ltd. Thus, we also direct the respondent No.2 to first clear the finance liability of Cholamandalalm Investment Finance Co. Ltd. and after doing so, if any amount is found payable to the complainant, the same be paid to the complainant.”

In the appeal, the same contention which has been raised before us, had been raised by the Petitioner. The State Commission had rejected the appeal and has held as under: -

          “As per version of the complainant, in the month of March, 2016 the insurance policy and few other documents concerned with the insured vehicle were misplaced and it was in his mind that the expiry date of the insurance policy period was in the month  of  April,  2016.  As  per  version  of the complainant, he

-5-

obtained second insurance policy from the opposite party No.1 – National Insurance Company Limited due to the reason mentioned above.  Anyhow from the record on the file it does not appear that the second insurance policy was obtained by the complainant as a result of any foul play or with the intention to take undue benefits. There appears to be possibilities that second insurance policy was obtained by the complainant due to misunderstanding and in fact the complainant himself is a looser as he had to pay some extra premium amount. When the truck vehicle was already insured up to May 10^th, 2016 certainly there was no necessity to obtain second insurance policy from the National Insurance Company Limited w.e.f. April 23^rd, 2016.  Admittedly, the total Insured Declared Value as mentioned in the second insurance policy was Rs.11,20,000/-.  

10.     Information was given to the Police regarding this accident on the same date at Police Station Sadar Sonipat. The police made entries in the Daily Diary Register at Serial No.19. Information was given regarding this accident to the opposite parties telephonically on the same date. Thereafter, legal notice was also served upon both the parties mentioning total insurance claim of the complainant as Rs.16,26,055/-. Shri R.S. Kohli, was appointed as surveyor by the Insurance Company. The surveyor in his report assessed the net loss caused to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.8,57,000/-. The report of the surveyor appears to be well reasoned and believable. Considering the total loss assessed by the surveyor as Rs.8,57,000/-, it was considered as a case of total loss.  Total Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was considered as Rs.11,20,000/- as mentioned in the second insurance policy before the accident took place. In this situation learned District Forum gave direction to make payment of an amount of Rs.9,69,000/- (total insured declared value Rs.11,20,000/- minus an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as salvage value and Rs.1,000/- under excess clause).

11.      As the truck vehicle was already insured with the opposite party No.2 – Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited till May 10^th, 2016, there was no necessity for the complainant to obtain the second insurance policy from the opposite party No.1-National Insurance Company Limited w.e.f. April 23^rd, 2016.  The opposite party No.2 cannot be allowed to

-6-

 escape from its liability to make payment of the compensation amount to the complainant merely because the complainant obtained second insurance policy. Rather, the opposite party No.1 – National Insurance Company Limited cannot be held liable to make payment of the insurance claim amount as the vehicle was already insured. I have already made observations in the foregoing paragraph that the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is to be considered as Rs.11,20,000/- instead of Rs.11,97,000/- as mentioned in the first insurance policy.

12.    As a result as per discussions above in detail, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated February 06^th, 2018 passed by the learned District Forum holding the opposite party No.2 liable to make payment of an amount of Rs.9,69,000/- and that the opposite party No.1 – National Insurance Company Limited is not liable to pay any amount as claimed. Resultantly, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed in limine.

The State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine. Similar objections have been raised before us. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act this Commission has a very limited jurisdiction. This Commission cannot re-appreciate or reassess the evidences and reach to a different conclusion on facts. The impugned order can be challenged only on two grounds, firstly when miscarriage of justice has been shown to have been caused or when the impugned order is contrary to the express provisions of law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654   has observed as under:

-7-

“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.”

Following this principle, we have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the argument that the complainant had never raised any claim from the petitioner, is concerned, there is an express finding of facts which is concurrent and this Court therefore cannot after reassessing and re-appreciating the evidences substitute its opinion. As regards the second argument that there are two policies, is concerned, both the insurance companies have to share the burden, learned counsel for the petitioner has been requested to show any provision under Insurance Act, 1938 or any authority which lays down the law whereby if by mistake the complainant had purchased a second policy, the loss has to be shared by both the insurance companies. He has failed to show that the impugned order is contrary to any provision of law

-8-

 and thus illegal. As regards the liability of both the companies is concerned the District Forum and the State Commission have clearly held that the first liability is that of the petitioner and not of the second insurance company. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed in limine alongwith all the pending applications.