PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

                This revision petition assails the order of the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no.21 of 2013 dated 16.10.2015 filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in consumer complaint no. 195 of 2010 dated 29.08.2012.

2.     The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/ complaint is the owner of Ford Ikon 1.6 SXI bearing registration no. HR 26 N 2321 which was insured with the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.1,94,000/- for the period 18.05.2009 to 17.05.2010. On 26.02.2010 the vehicle met with an accident and was severely damaged. The vehicle was towed by the respondent/ complainant to A B Motors Pvt., Ltd., Dehradun, which was the authorised service centre of the petitioner. A surveyor inspected the vehicle on 03.03.2010 and estimated the cost of repair as Rs.2,22,500/- and labour charges. As the estimate of the surveyor was more than the Insured Declared Value (in short, the ‘IDV’) of the vehicle, the respondent/ complainant claimed the insured value of Rs.1,94,000/- from the petitioner. On 18.05.2010 the petitioner informed the respondent no.1 by way of a letter to get the vehicle repaired as per the surveyor’s report. As the cost of the repair exceeded the IDV of the vehicle, the respondent/ complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 23.06.2010 and requested for the settlement of the claim of Rs.1,94,000/-‘, the insured value. As this claim was not settled, the respondent/ complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed consumer complaint no.195 of 2010 vide order dated 29.08.2012 ordering that:

“It is hereby directed to opposite party insurance company that they should pay the amount of Rs.1,94,000/- within one month (30 days) of this order to the complainant. They are also directed that the additional amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be provided to the complainant for the purpose of compensation for mental agony and financial loss suffered and Rs.10,000/- as additional amount for the compensation of litigation expenses. It is made clear that if opposite party company has not made the payment of the aforesaid amount in the time fixed then complainant will be entitled to obtain the interest at the rate of 9% yearly from the date of presenting of complaint till the date of actual payment on the aforesaid whole amount.”

3.     The petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal no.21 of 2013 stating that as per the report of the surveyor the vehicle was repairable and it was prepared to settle the claim on the basis of the repair. It was averred that the District Forum had erred in not allowing the deduction for salvage and had failed to appreciate that an estimate is always inflated. It was argued that the claim had not been repudiated and that the estimate of the surveyor for a loss of Rs.94,302.96 including the labour charges of Rs.17,206/- would be settled. The order of the State Commission was that:

“14.    After perusal of all the evidence and submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1, we are of the view that the insurance of the vehicle was cashless and the insured-respondent No. 1 was only responsible to take the accidented vehicle to the authorized service center of the appellant-insurance company. It was the duty of the appellant-insurance company and its authorized service center to conduct survey of the vehicle and repaired the vehicle. So in these circumstances, if the vehicle was repairable, there was no need of respondent No. 1-complainant’s consent. Authorized workshop should repaired the said vehicle and should be handover the same to the complainant-respondent No. 1. But the repair estimate was more than vehicle’s IDV, so the vehicle in question was not repaired.

15.     The said vehicle met an accident on 26.02.2010. The appellant-insurance company has not fulfill the respondent No.1-complainant’s claim. Therefore, this the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-insurance company.

16.     While concluding our findings, we find that the order passed by the District Forum is little bit on higher side. Therefore, the order in respect of mental agony is liable to be reduced from Rs. 50,000/ to Rs. 10,000/- and the cost of litigation is also to be reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5, 000/-. To this extent, the impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2012 is liable to be modified. Consequently, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly.

17.     Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun is modified to the extent that the appellantinsurance company is directed to pay to the respondent No. 1-complainant a sum of Rs. 1,94,000/- against insured amount, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses”.

4.     The State Commission arrived at its findings after hearing both the parties and taking into account the written submissions of the surveyor Mr Preetesh Joshi that he had indicated in his report the IDV of Rs.1,94,000/- and no amount estimated for repair was disclosed and the fact that the insurance was for a cash less policy as per which M/s A B Motors as the authorised service centre of the petitioner was required to repair the vehicle and hand it over to the respondent/ complainant. It also noted that the authorised service centre had itself estimated repair of the vehicle at Rs.2,22,500/-. The State Commission agreed  with the finding of the District Forum on facts and only partly allowed the appeal and reduced the cost for mental agony and litigation cost from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- respectively.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records carefully and given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case. It is not disputed that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. It is evident that the insured vehicle was eligible for cash less repairs at the authorised service centre by the petitioner. It is also evident that the estimated value of repair by the authorised service centre of Rs.2,25,000/- was higher than the insured value of Rs.1,94,000/-. From the records it is clear, as per the written statement of the surveyor, Mr Preetesh Joshi,  that the report submitted by him only indicated IDV of Rs.1,94,000/- and not the amount required for repair. The lower fora have arrived at concurrent findings relating to these facts and have ordered accordingly. The present revision petition has filed to bring out any new fact or argued on any perversity or illegality in the order of the lower fora.

6.          The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments with regard to cases where lower fora had given a concurrent finding of facts. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 that:

“23.      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”.

7.     In view of the above, we find no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission. The vehicle had met with an accident on 26.02.2010 and the matter has pended resolution ever since due to the petitioner’s unwillingness to settle the claim, and approaching the State Commission in appeal without formally repudiating the claim despite the availability of a report from the surveyor appointed by it. Modification of the District Forum’s order in reducing the compensation and litigation cost by the State Commission is not supported any reasons for the same and cannot, therefore, be sustained.  Accordingly, the modification of the order by the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is affirmed.