C.VISWANATH 1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 369 of 2017 dated 04.10.2017. 2. IA No. 159/2018 is an application for condonation of delay of 1 day filed by the counsel for the Petitioner. In view of the averments made and reasons adduced for the small delay, delay is condoned. 3. The Complainant/Respondent No. 1 stated that his goods carrying vehicle bearing No. PB03 AC-2177 was insured with Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, vide policy No. 3379/00764756/000/01, valid from 15.09.2013 to midnight 14.09.2014. Value of the vehicle declared by Opposite Party No.1 was Rs.20,70,000/-. On 13.09.2014, the said vehicle of the Complainant was stolen by Ganga Prasad S/o Vinod Kumar. An F.I.R. No. 148, dated 25.09.2014 was registered at Lambi Police Station, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. Both, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were informed about the theft of vehicle. The Complainant completed all the formalities, as required by the Petitioner, through Respondent No.2 who financed the vehicle. It was further pleaded that the Complainant had not received any amount till date. He was shocked to know that the Petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. Rs.40,000/ on 31.10.2014 and Rs.2,60,000/- on 31.03.2015 in the loan account of Complainant maintained with Respondent No.2. The Complainant was entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.17,70,000/-. Despite requests, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 connived with each other, did not release the remaining claim amount. A legal notice dated 06.04.2016 was also issued for release of the claim, but to no avail. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, the Complainant filed the Complaint. 4. Petitioner in his written statement had taken certain preliminary objections that intricate questions of law and facts were involved in the present complaint, which required voluminous evidence and as such appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. The Complainant had concealed the fact that date of loss had been intimated as 14.09.2014, whereas F.I.R. was lodged with the police on 25.09.2014 i.e. with a delay of 11 days. Further, the Petitioner was intimated on 06.10.2014 i.e. with a delay of 22 days. This had prejudiced possibilities of recovery of the vehicle and was a serious breach of condition No. 1 and 9 of the Insurance Policy. The Petitioner, sent a letter dated 07.10.2014 to the Complainant seeking documents for processing and deciding the claim and justifying the delay in intimation to the Police as well as the Petitioner. It was further pleaded that M/s Shani Associates was deputed to investigate the entire theft claim. Letters dated 28.10.2014, 13.11.2014 and 10.12.2014 sent to the Complainant remained unanswered. The claim was closed as no claim, for want of documents and non-cooperation by the Complainants; that the Complainant had no locus standi or cause of action to file the present Compliant; that the Complaint was not maintainable in the present form; and that this Forum had no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present Complaint. On merits, ownership of vehicle in question, insurance, period and I.D.V. thereof, were admitted. Further, Rs.3,00,000/- as on account payment to Opposite Party No.2 was also admitted. It was, however, pleaded that the same was subject to admissibility of the claim and submission of all required documents, but the Complainant failed to submit the documents even after repeated reminders. As such Opposite Party No.1 reserved its right to recover the said amount. Other allegations of the Complainant were denied and prayer been made for dismissal of the Complaint with costs. 5. Respondent No.2, in his written statement, has taken certain preliminary objections that its Branch Office was at Delhi, loan agreement was executed at Delhi, loan amount was also disbursed from Delhi. As such, no cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of the District Forum, that the Complainant had no locus standi to file the present Complaint, as the Complainant was not a Consumer; that they had extended a loan of Rs.16,35,000/- to the Complainant for purchase of Ashoka Leyland Truck No. 4019 and the amount alongwith interest was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments. Vehicle of Complainant was insured with the Petitioner and was stolen on 13.09.2014. Claim was lodged with the Petitioner Insurance Company and same was to be paid to them, being the financier of the insured vehicle. Complainant cleared the loan account on 03.09.2016 by way of compromise with bank and statements in this regard were also recorded in the court of Ms. Indu Bala, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Hisar. As nothing was due in the loan account of the Complainant, there was no dispute between the Complainant and them. The amount, whatsoever had been received from the Insurance Company towards insurance theft claim i.e. Rs.40,000/- on 31.10.2014 and Rs.2,60,000/- on 31.03.2015 and had adjusted in the loan account. Complainant made a settlement with bank after calculating this amount. There was, thus, no deficiency in service on their part; that Complaint was bad for mis-joinder of parties, that Complaint was not maintainable as the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose and that the present Complaint did not fall in the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, same facts have been reiterated as mentioned in the preliminary objections and allegations of the Complainant have been denied. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the Complaint with costs, had been made. 6. District Forum, vide order dated 15.02.2017, allowed the Complaint and accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 was directed to pay Rs.17,70,000/- to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of theft of vehicle and Rs.10,000/- as costs/compensation. However, there was no order against Respondent No.2. After appreciating the law discussed above and considering the part payment made by the Petitioner to the Complainant, i.e., Rs.3,00,000/-, the Forum was of the considered view that the theft took place on 13.09.2014 as per F.I.R. by one Ganga Prasad S/o Vinod Kumar who was the driver of the Complainant. After the theft, neither the Truck nor the accused could be traced. When the driver of the vehicle committed such a mistake/offence, it was but natural for the owner to take some time in lodging the F.I.R. The accused could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender by the Competent Court of law, vide order dated 24.11.2015, and after registration of the F.I.R., the Petitioner/Insurance Company was informed. In light of the above discussion, repudiating the claim of Complainant by the Petitioner was not justified in the eyes of policy/law. Complainant was successful in proving deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, when the Petitioner paid Rs.3,00,000/- in two different installments i.e. dated 31.10.2014 and 31.03.2015 and the Petitioner was not justified in rejecting the remaining claim/payment for which Complainant was entitled. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle under the policy was admittedly Rs.20,70,000/- as assessed by the agent of the Petitioner. The District Forum held that the Complainant was entitled for the IDV of Rs.20,70,000/- after deducting the payment already made, alongwith interest. 7. Aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner has filed the Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, vide order dated 04.10.2017, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum. 8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission. 9. Heard the Learned Counsels for the Petitioner and Respondents. They reiterated his respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsels. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act is limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and re-assess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion on the facts when there is a concurrent finding of fact by the Forum below. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269”, as under: “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”. 10. These findings are reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under: “17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.” 11. In the present case, both the Forum below had reached to the concurrent finding. Respondent No. 1 / Complainant purchased insurance policy for his goods carrying vehicle No. PB03AC-2177 by depositing the requisite premium valid from 15.09.2013 to 14.09.2014. The Insured Declared Value (IDV)of the vehicle was Rs.20,70,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle was registered in the name of the Complainant and there was theft of the said vehicle. An FIR was registered and the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were informed about the theft. 12. The first objection of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 1/Complainant was not a consumer. The Complainant has clearly stated in the complaint that the vehicle has been purchased to earn his livelihood. The Complainant is a consumer, as it is clearly covered by the explanation given in the definition of ‘consumer’ under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground of belated intimation of the theft. It is surprising to note that the Petitioner made part payment of the claim to a tune of Rs.3 lakh, after verifying the necessary documents and not giving the remaining amount of claim is not understandable. If the claim was to be repudiated, no amount should have been paid and there was no justification for making part payment and then withholding the other part of the claim, without sufficient justification. 13. The District Forum rightly observed that when the driver of the vehicle commits a mistake/offence it was but natural for the owner to take some time in lodging the FIR. Respondent No. 1/Complainant tried to locate the truck and when he could not find it, he informed the Police regarding the theft. The Complainant had given a satisfactory explanation regarding the delay in informing the Police. FIR was registered, but as the accused could not be arrested, was declared proclaimed offender by the competent court of law. After registration of FIR, the Insurance Company was informed. Repudiation of claim by the Petitioner / OP-1 was not justifiable in the eyes of law/policy. 14. IRDA circular 20/09/2011 is clear that the genuine claims should not be rejected on the ground of delayed intimation and submission of documents. The decision of the insured must be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The Insurance Companies have also been advised that the insurer must not repudiate the claim until and unless the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and insurer should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time. 15. In view of the above, the present Petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed and orders passed by both the Fora below are confirmed. |
