1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 22.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 615 of 2017 in which order dated 20.03.2017 of Rohtak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 290 of 2013  was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2017 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OP No.1 and 2) were Appellants before the State Commission and OP No.1 and OP No.2 before the District Forum,  Respondent no.1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred as OP No.3) was Respondent no.2 before the State Commission and Complainant and OP No.3 before the District  Forum in  CC no. 290 of 2013.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 06.02.2019.  Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 22.11.2023.  No one appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1 on 22.11.2023 despite notice, hence respondent no.1 was proceeded ex parte.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant got his vehicle  insured with OP Nos. 1 and 2 ( Insurance Company) valid w.e.f. 03.08.2011 to 02.08.2012.  On 21.09.2011, the vehicle was stolen and FIR No. 235 dated 22.09.2011 under section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Mansarovar Park.  The Insurance Company was also informed.  The complainant submitted his claim with the insurance company alongwith all the required document but the same was not settled by the Insurance Company.  Being aggrieved, the complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 20.03.2017 allowed the complaint.  Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 22.09.2017  dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.  Hence, the Insurance Company is before the Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 22.09.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. Both the Fora below failed to appreciate that no claim intimation was given to the Petitioner regarding alleged theft of vehicle and so the Petitioner could not process the claim for want of claim intimation and requisite documents.  There was clear breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of respondent no.1. as complainant was required to immediately lodge the claim with regard to theft of vehicle but complainant did not do so nor informed the insurance company about the alleged theft.

2. Both the fora below failed to appreciate that complainant did not file any document along with his complaint to show that he had lodged a claim with Petitioner.  No acknowledgement or any other proof of delivery of letters dated 29.09.2011, 24.10.2011, 02.02.2012 to the Petitioner was placed on record. 

3. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal JT 2004 (8) SC (8) wherein it is held that terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or substracted from the same and Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 

6.       Heard counsel for the Petitioner and Authorized Representative of Respondent no. 2.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1     Counsel for the Petitioner argued that liability of the Petitioner was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent no.1 never intimated or approached the Petitioners about the theft of the vehicle or its claim.  All the alleged communications are an afterthought and no authentic proof of intimation to the petitioner Insurance Company was brought on record by the respondent no.1.  Had there been any intimation to the Petitioner, the Petitioner would have registered a claim and appointed an independent investigator to investigate the matter but there was no such intimation to the Petitioner. The State Commission failed to appreciate the contractual obligations on the part of the respondent no.1 as incorporated in condition no.1 of the policy. 

7.       The vehicle in question was stolen on 21.09.2011, police was informed on 22.09.2011.  The respondent no.1 claims to have informed the Petitioner – Insurance Company on 22.09.2011, 29.09.2011, 24.10.2011 and 02.02.2012 and have submitted all the required documents but Petitioner – Insurance Company denies having received any such intimation.  The Insurance Company contends that respondent no.1 never intimated or approached them about the theft of the vehicle or for its claim, and all the alleged communications are an after-thought and no authentic proof of intimation to the Petitioner – Insurance Company was brought on record by respondent no.1.

8.       Respondent no.1 / complainant is an Engineering College run by a registered Samiti.  Respondent no.1 has contended before the District Forum that they provided all the documents like FIR, untraced report, copy of RC etc. to the Insurance Company.  Also, a legal notice dated 09.06.2012 was got served but the same was not replied.         Petitioner- Insurance Company on the other hand contended before the District Forum that no intimation regarding theft was given to OPs and documents have also not been provided till date.  District Forum after considering the evidences placed before it ( Ex. C1 and Ex. C-7) came to the conclusion that Complainant had intimated the OP-Insurance Company on 22.09.2011 i.e. next day of the theft.  Further, on considering Ex. C-4 and Ex.C-6 and copies of documents placed on record by Complainant,  District Forum did not agree with the contention of Insurance Company that Complainant did not intimate them and provided the required documents.  We are in agreement with these findings of District Forum.  State Commission while upholding the findings of District Forum has appropriately dealt with the contention of Insurance Company that District Forum Rohtak had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because the insurance policy was issued at Chennai, observing as follows:

“4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the Insurance Company and completed the necessary formalities. The only ground taken by the Insurance Company in rejecting the claim of the complainant was that the District Forum, Rohtak had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because the insurance policy was issued at Chennai, The plea of the Insurance Company is not tenable in view of the fact that the vehicle was purchased at Rohtak, that is, Lohchab Motors Company Private Limited-opposite party No.3 and in the insurance policy, name of the intermediary is mentioned: Lohchab Motors Company Private Limited-opposite party No.3. Thus part of cause of action had arisen at Rohtak. The Insurance Company adopted deprecated practice by denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claim lodged with the complainant was otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The Insurance Company should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

9.       As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held 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.”

10.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8^th  September, 2022, held that:-

“13. 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.

14. 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. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

11.     After giving a careful consideration to entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that both State Commission and District Forum have given a well-reasoned order(s).  We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission, hence the same is upheld.  Accordingly, RP is dismissed.

12.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.