1. These Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Original Complainants, are directed against the Common Order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 63 & 159 of 2016.  By the Impugned Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Cross Appeals filed by the Complainants and LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (for short “the Finance Company”), Opposite Party No.3 in the Complaint and upheld the Order dated 02.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalna (for short “the District Forum”). The District Forum while allowing the Complaint filed by the Complainant had directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint to pay the surrender value of the policy to the Complainant along with interest @7% p.a. from May 1996 till realization of the amount. Further, the Finance Company was directed to pay a sum of ₹10,116/- to the Complainant with interest @9% p.a. from 02.07.1997 till realization. The Finance Company was also directed to pay ₹50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and ₹25,000/- towards costs to the Complainant. 

02. At the outset, it may be noted that this is a second round of litigation.  In the first round of litigation, vide its Order dated 30.11.2004, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint No. 09/2003 filed by the Complainant and directed Respondents No. 1 and 2 Insurance Companies to refund the amount of ₹10,116/- with interest; pay ₹50,000/- towards mental agony and ₹2,000/- as litigation costs and further to regularize the policy, after adjusting the premiums. However, the Respondent No. 3 Finance Company was not impleaded in the arrayed of the parties in the said Complaint. Aggrieved with the said order, Respondents No. 1 and 2 Insurance Company filed First Appeal No. 91 of 2005 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide its Order dated 11.03.2010, affirmed the order of the District Forum.  However, while doing so, the State Commission reduced the amount of compensation of ₹50,000/-, as directed by the District Forum, to ₹10,000/-.  Still not satisfied with the Order passed by the State Commission, Respondents No. 1 and 2 Insurance Companies preferred Revision Petition No. 2788 of 2010 before this Commission and this Commission, Vide Order dated 09.07.2015, remanded the matter back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication, after taking on record the stand of Respondent No.3, as it was not made a party opponent in the Complaint.  Consequently, the Complainants preferred amended Complaint, before the District Forum.  

03. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that on 10.10.1988 the Complainants had obtained an insurance policy, namely, “Jeevan Sathi (Double Cover Joint Life Plan) with Profits (with Accident Benefit)”, from Respondent No.1, Life Insurance Corporation, Branch at Jalna, for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- and they were regularly paying premiums therefor. The maturity date of the policy was 10.10.2008. In the year, 1992, against the said policy, the Complainants applied for a loan from Respondent No.3 Finance Company. They were sanctioned a loan of ₹1,30,000/-, out of which the Complainants borrowed only a sum of ₹1,17,000/-. As and when the instalments to be paid were delayed on the part of the Complainants, interest was charged for the same, which was also paid by the Complainants.  According to the Complainants, they had paid a total sum of ₹3,27,741/- towards loan amount, interest on it and amount of premium, through Bank of Maharashtra, Jalna Branch.  After the said payment, when the Complainants received the mortgaged policy back on 29.11.2001, they found that the policy was lapsed since 01.05.1996.  On enquiries made, Insurance Company vide its letter dated 09.01.2003 i.e. after two years informed the Complainants that they had not paid premium since May 1996 and demanded a total sum of ₹60,501/- for restoration of policy, i.e. ₹37,920/- towards 80 months’ premiums @ ₹474/- per month and ₹22,581/- as 12% interest along with health declaration and medical certificate.  According to the Complainants, when they were not intimated about non-payment of the premiums by the Insurance Company, the amount sought for paying the unpaid premiums was not justified. According to the Complainants, they sent two demand drafts for ₹49,000/- dated 30.08.2000 to the Insurance Company towards the premium defaulted. Further, they sent ₹15,000/- on 02.10.2000. By letter dated 17.01.2002, the Complainants sought the explanation from the Insurance Company about interest and additional interest with loan amount. Despite repeated requests, the Respondents had not given any explanation in this behalf.  On 31.12.1997, the Insurance Company issued a cheque amounting to ₹2,807.80 ps. to the Complainants towards refund of excess amount received by them. However, according to the Complainants, as on 02.04.1996 and 02.07.1997 further sums of ₹3,675/- and ₹6,441/- were also required to be refunded, which were not refunded by the Respondents.

04. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in demanding a sum of ₹60,251/- for regularization of the policy in question, though they had already paid a total sum of ₹3,27,741/-, and not intimating about non-payment of the premiums to them, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the District Forum.  

5. Upon notice, all the Respondents contested the Complaint by filing their respective written versions.     

6. As far as Respondent No.1 was concerned, on its behalf, while reiterating that the policy in question had been issued by it and was assigned to the Finance Company; the said assignment was recorded by Respondent No.2; the revival quotation was also issued by Respondent No.2, which had no legal obligation to intimate the Complainants about the lapsed policy; the Finance Company was the rightful owner/assignee of the policy and, hence, the Complainants had no legal stand as far as the policy was concerned; and the policy got lapsed due to the non-payment of the premium, additionally it was stated that the Complaint was hit by non-joinder of necessary party as well as misjoinder of party. As the Complainants had taken loan from the Finance Company, they ought to have filed the Complaint only against it.  Further, the loan was sanctioned and obtained by the Complainants at Aurangabad and, hence, the District Forum at Jalna had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.  Neither the Complainants nor the Finance Company had intimated Respondent No.1 about payment or receipt of policy premium.   

8. As regards Respondent No.2, it was averred that the Complainants had borrowed from the Finance Company a loan of ₹1,17,000/- in the year 1992.  Up-to the year 2001, they had paid a total sum of ₹3,27,741/- but this amount was paid towards loan and interest.  The policy premium remained unpaid and the policy got lapsed.  It was further stated that the interest was charged on the total amount and no excess interest was charged from the Complainants.   

9. On behalf of the Finance Company, it was stated that it had given a loan of ₹1,17,000/- to the Complainants on 29.11.1991, for which the policy in question, assured in the sum of ₹1,00,000/-, was mortgaged with it.  The interest was charged @ 15.5%.  As per the agreement, it was necessary for the Complainants to pay the loan instalment and policy premium on each month, otherwise it had a right to cancel the agreement.  The Complainants had not paid certain instalments in the year 1993, for which they were informed from time to time.  However, after paying the dues of ₹1998/- on 15.06.1994, the Complainants did not deposit the instalments, on account of which the policy in question got lapsed.  Thereafter, the amount paid by the Complainants was adjusted towards loan amount and interest thereon and the remaining amount was refunded to them. On 29.11.2001, the loan account of the Complainants was closed and the remaining amount and the policy was returned to the Complainants.  The policy was also reassigned to Life Insurance Corporation of India.  Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Finance Company. 

10. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint in the above terms. The English translation of the relevant paragraphs is reproduced as under:-

“ Complainant had mortgaged his policy No 980902912 with LIC Housing Finance and obtained loan of Rs 1,17,000/-. Complainant was to pay installment of loan and policy premium to LIC Housing Finance each month through Bank of Mahrashtra, Jalna. According to say of LIC Housing Finance, there were outstanding installments on 20/02/1993, 28/04/1993, 15/07/1993, 12/10/1993. As above installments were not paid in time they were charged penalty interest. After that on 15/06/1994 Complainant deposited Rs 1988/-. After that Complainant had not deposited installments in time. Hence his policy was lapsed. Time to time information was given to Complainant regarding default in installments. Policy would have regularized after payment of premium along with interest and submission of Medical Certificate. Complainant was informed about this in writing. As policy was lapsed amount deposited by the Complainant was transferred towards interest and loan amount. Excess amount deposited by Complainant was refunded to him time to time. When complainant paid total amount of Rs.3,27,741/- in the year 2001 policy was returned to him.

 

Respondent No.3 says that, he had given written information to the Complainant about default in installment and regarding lapse of policy and he was also informed orally. But Respondent had not filed any evidence in this regard. On Exh. 4/12 Loan Statement of Complainant is filed. In that statement on 02/04/1996 Rs.6,441/, on 02/07/1997 Rs.3,675/- and on 31/12/1997 Rs 2,860/-. is shown as "Refund". But it is say of Complainant that, out of this he got only Rs 2,860/-. Complainant had sent letters to Respondent it is at Exh. 4/5 & 4/6 and informed that he received Rs.2,860/- only and remaining amount is not received. Complainant was depositing monthly installments and premium through Bank of Maharashtra to LIC Housing Finance. Complainant had filed receipts and certificate issued by Bank of Maharashtra regarding regular payment, from that it is seen that Complainant was paying installments regularly. It is clearly seen from receipts filed by Complainant that he had regularly paid installment as well as premium. Even then Respondent no.3 adjusted his amount in loan installment and interest on it and not deposited premium with LIC Housing Finance. This show deficiency in the service of Respondent no.3. Policy of Complainant was lapsed from 1995 this fact was not informed by Respondent to Complainant. Complainant was given protection of Rs.1,00,000/- under this policy. In the above, if any bad incident would have occurred, respondent would have refused to pay insurance for the reason that policy is lapsed. Due to mistake of Respondent no.3, amount deposited by the Complainant towards premium, was (not) given to respondent no.1 LIC of India and policy of Complainant was lapsed. Complainant could not get any benefit of policy. And he was compelled to file this complaint in this forum. So this Forum feels that Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs50,000/- for the mental and physical torture caused to him.”

 

11. Aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Forum, the Complainants and the Finance Company filed their respective cross Appeals before the State Commission.  As noted above, the State Commission dismissed both the Appeals observed as under:-

“ Under the circumstances, learned Adv. Smt. Priyanka Kumbhar who appeared before us simply prayed for adjournment on the ground that her senior advocate is not available today. We declined this request on the ground that Written Argument is already on record. We have gone through the Written Argument on record on behalf of both the parties which is in Cross Appeal challenging the said award. Looking into judgment and award, it appears clear that the insurance policy with respect of policy No. 980902912 taken on 10th October, 1988 with maturity date of 10th October,2008 for the impact pledge by the Complainant for incurred loan amount of Rs.1,17,000/-. It also appears that, monthly installment under the policy in the sum of Rs.474/- payable per month is not paid regularly after the month of May, 1996. In the result, the policy has lapsed and this fact was undisputed by the parties. Policy validity period was until 10th October,2008 only. Therefore, there was no question of regularization of the same policy which had already matured. It is under these circumstances the policy stood cancelled and lapsed. Under these circumstances, Ld. Forum concluded that, policy cannot be regularized. In our view, the conclusion was correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. The rate of interest awarded upon the surrender amount was also reasonable and just. The award amount not only covered the surrendered value but also included compensation and cost. The amount Rs.6,641/- and 3675/- were also awarded to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. The submission made on behalf of the LIC that, amount in the sum of Rs.6441/- and sum of Rs.3675/- were refunded is the contention could not be proved by acceptable and reliable documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the Ld. Forum. Mere copies of extract of loan amount not convincing to prove it entry without corroborative and sufficient evidence to pay the amount to the complainant, as alleged. Under these circumstances we do not find any ground to overturn the wording by Ld. District Forum. Hence, both these appeals for want of merits are dismissed. No order as to costs.” 

 

12. Hence, the present Revision Petitions by the Complainants. The Finance Company has not challenged the order passed by the State Commission and as such it has attained finality qua them.            

13. Heard the Complainants appearing in person and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material available on record as well as Written Submissions. 

14. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Companies submitted that in terms of the Orders passed by the Fora Below the Insurance Companies calculated the surrender value of the policy with 7% interest p.a. w.ef. 1.05.1996 which came to be ₹63030/- and the said amount was deposited with the District Forum. Since, the Orders passed by the Fora below had already been complied with, no cause of action remains against them. 

15. Learned Counsel appearing for the Finance Company urged that the Complainants were liable to pay EMIs towards the loan obtained by them and also the premium toward the Insurance Policy assigned in their favour. However, the Complainants failed to pay the installments and committed defaults on various occasions and accordingly reminders were issued to the Complainants.  The Complainants defaulted in payment of EMIs on 22.02.1993, 28.04.1993, 15.07.1993 and 12.10.1993 and, therefore, reminders were issued by the Finance Company to them. The Complainants paid an amount of ₹1998/-  on 15.06.1994 and thereafter no amount was paid for a long time as a result of which the policy in question lapsed on 01.05.1995 for non-payment of the premium. After lapse of the Policy, the Finance Company only collected the amount due from the Complainants toward the interest and the excess amount was refunded to them. Number of times, reminders were sent to the Complainants for revival of the Policy only furnishing declaration of good health. But the Complainants had completely failed to get revived the policy in question and as such the amounts received from the Complainants were adjusted towards loan, interest and additional interest etc. 

16. As against this, Complainants appearing in person submitted that they had paid an amount of ₹3,27,741/- to the Finance Company against the loan amount of ₹1,17,000/- through the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch an Jalna and a Certificate had been issued by the said Bank to the effect that the Complainants had deposited monthly installments with premium of Policy since 08.05.1992. However, the Finance Company adjusted the amount paid to it on various heads i.e. interest, additional interest, short rim, principal etc. but not remitted the Policy Premium to its sister Concern i.e. Insurance Company. If the Finance Company would have paid the premium amount of ₹474/- per month the Policy would not have lapsed. The Finance Company neither paid the Premium of the Policy received by it nor refunded it to the Complainants and they never informed to them about the lapse of policy in the year 1996.  Under such circumstances, as there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Finance Company, the Complainants are entitled for maturity benefits instead of surrender value.   

17. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, we do not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the Complainants appearing in person. 

18. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Complainants had obtained a Jeevan Saathi Policy from the Insurance Company for an assured sum of ₹1,00,000/- for the period from 10.10.1988 to 10.10.2008. The Complainants applied and were sanctioned a loan of ₹1,30,000/- for construction of house by the Finance Company, i.e. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. against mortgage of the Policy in question. However, they withdrew only ₹1,17,000/-.  Against the said loan amount, the Complainants had paid an amount of ₹3,27,741/- which included the principal, interest, additional interest and the Premium of the Policy.  The Complainants were required to pay an amount of ₹474/- per month towards the premium of the policy which they paid till May 1996. There is concurrent finding of facts returned by the Fora below that the Complainants could not pay the amount of EMIs including premium of policy after May, 1996 which resulted in lapse of the policy.  Thereafter, the Finance Company did not pay any premium amount to the Insurance Company and also refunded the excess amount to the Complainant. However, they had failed to inform the Complainants that the Policy in question had lapsed due to non-payment of Premium. We fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Fora below that since the Policy was matured on 10.10.2008, there was no question of its restoration and, therefore, the Fora below had directed the Insurance Company to pay only Surrender Value along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of lapse of policy till realization. This apart, the Finance Company had been directed to refund the excess amount of ₹10,116/- with interest @9% p.a. from 02.07.97 and further to pay compensation of ₹50,000/- to the Complainants for the lapse on their part to inform about lapse of the policy. The Complainants had also been awarded costs of ₹25,000/- payable by the Finance Company. The Respondent Insurance Company had already complied with the award and deposited the awarded amount with the District Forum. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Fora below is based on due appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties and it does not call for any interference from us under limited Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 21 of the Act. 

18. Even otherwise, it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Orders passed by the Fora Below in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Orders.  The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted 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. .....”

 

19. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors. - (2022) 9 SCC 31  while affirming its earlier view taken in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2011) 11 SCC 269  that the National Commission has no right to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of the Fora below in its Revisional Jurisdiction, has held as under:-

“ At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 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. 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.”

 

20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-noted Judgments, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Orders passed by the Fora below in Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Act.  Consequently, the present Revision Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.  However, no orders as to costs. 

21. Before parting with the matter, it is made clear that if any amount is lying deposited with the District Forum, the same shall be released in favour of the Complainants  immediately with accrued interest and the balance amount, if any, payable in terms of the Orders passed by the Fora below, shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of this order.