1.       This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 of the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Cuttack (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.08/2020 whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2.

2.       Case of the Complainant is that on 03.06.2018, he purchased an Apple iPhone from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.54,700/-. Complainant was informed that his phone had been insured. The insurance cover was for stealing, missing, own damage etc., for which he was told that Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 receives the premium amount of Rs.5,199/-. Despite repeated requests, the Opposite Parties did not disclose the name of the Insurance Company with which they got the phone insured. On 03.01.2009, the mobile phone was stolen at Badambadi Bus Stand, Cuttack. FIR No.20 was lodged at Badambadi Police Station on the same day. The Complainant intimated the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 about the theft on toll free number and the Complainant was issued a complaint reference No.3856121 and advised to send the invoice and copy of FIR on WhatsApp. Though the Complainant sent the same, no action was taken by the Opposite Parties. Alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complainant before the District Forum with the following prayer: -

“Hence, the complainant craves the leave of this Hon’ble Forum and seeks justice. For such illegal action of the OPs the Complainant inflicted great humility, financial hardship and mental agony. So he prayed the Forum to direct the OPs to pay the price of the said handset and a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation for such arbitrary, highhanded and unfair practices on the part of OPs and may grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3.       Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 did not appear before the District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. Opposite Party No.2/Petitioner contested the Complaint by filing written statement. It was stated that as the iPhone was stolen due to the negligent act of the Complainant, it would not be covered under the warranty and Opposite Party No.2 was not liable for any refund or compensation to the Complainant.

4.       After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2, District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 as follows: -

“i.     The Opposite Party No.2 above is hereby directed to pay the cost of the mobile set Rs.54,700/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand & Seven Hundred only) besides, to pay Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the Complainant.

ii.       All the above directions shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, Rs.50/- per day shall add to the award sum from the date of order to till its realization.”

5.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Opposite Party No.2/Petitioner filed Appeal No.08/2020 with the State Commission and the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 26.11.2020, concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal. This has led to filing of the present Revision Petition.

6.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as the Petitioner had no privity of contract with the Complainant/Respondent No.1, it was not liable for any payment. It was incumbent upon the Complainant to claim from the Insurance Company. Since the Complainant had got the FIR registered, it was the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to track and recover the phone of the Complainant. It was submitted that the Complainant had not adduced any evidence to the effect that the Petitioner received any premium for the Insurance Cover. He submitted that as the Complainant had not impleaded the Insurance Company, the Complaint was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary Party.

7.       Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased an iPhone on 03.06.2018 for Rs.54,700/-. He also paid Rs.5199/- towards MA Apple Total (Protection Plan). On 03.01.2019 iPhone was stolen by some miscreants at Badambadi Bus Stand. Same day the Complainant got the FIR registered at Badambadi Police Station. He also lodged a complained on the toll free number of the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2. He was advised to send the copy of the Invoice and FIR on WhatsApp and issued complaint reference No.3856121. In spite of repeated requests of the Complainant his grievance was not redressed.

8.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Petitioner. In this regard it is necessary to have a look at the invoice dated 03.06.2018, which clearly shows the Complainant had paid Rs.5,199/- to the Petitioner towards MA Apple Total (Protection Plan) ranging from 40001 to 50000. When the Complainant had paid Rs.5,199/- to the Petitioner towards MA Apple Total (Protection Plan), Petitioner cannot say that there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 did not receive any premium relating to the Insurance Cover. The Petitioner in its reply filed before the District Forum remained silent as to the action it had taken on complaint reference No.3856121. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 had not impleaded the Insurance Company as Opposite Party in the Complaint. The Complaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary Party. It was the case of the Complainant that in spite of repeated requests the Petitioner never disclosed the name of the Insurance Company from whom the Insurance Cover had been taken. In the written statement, Opposite Party No.1/Petitioner remained silent on this issue. In fact, in the written statement Opposite Party No.1 repeatedly stated that the Complainant did not visit their Authorized Service Centre for rectification of manufacturing defect in the phone, though the case of the Complainant was not related to any manufacturing defect. It pertained to theft of the phone. The State Commission held that it was the duty of O.P. No.2 to take proper steps to trace the stolen mobile. O.P. No.2 failed to take immediate steps even after receipt of relevant documents from the Complainant. This amounted to deficiency of service on the part of O.P. No.2. Both the Fora had concurrent finding against the Petitioner.

9.       Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269  has held as under: -

“13.        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.       Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23. The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their 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 view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Petitioner failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction  Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.