1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Chandigarh (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner/ Complainant – Jeevan Lata filed Revision Petition No. 1481/2018 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against IFFCO Tokio Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/Insurance Company). The Complaint filed by the Complainant being Consumer Complaint No. 6 of 2017 before the District Forum was partly allowed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 14.08.2017 is reproduced as under: -

“10. The Insured Declared Value of the car as on 14.02.2015 was assessed to be Rs. 5,39,778/-. The car stolen on 08.12.2015 i.e. after lapse of about 10 months. As per the terms and conditions of the policy of commercial vehicle placed on file, the depreciation for fixing Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle stands reduced almost 10% per annum and as such, the value of the insured stolen vehicle no. CH-01-AA-1234 of the complainant as on 08.12.2015 comes to Rs.4,85,800/- as IDV i.e. Rs. 5,39,778 – Rs. 53,968 (10% depreciation).

11.    Keeping into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case, the complainant is found to be entitled for the claim of Rs. 4,85,800/- being the value of the car as on the date of theft. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 4,85,800/-to the complainant being the value of the car in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12.    The Complainant, however, is not entitled for any compensatory cost and litigation expenditure or any interest on the awarded amount, because the driver of the vehicle was also found to be little careless. Had he been vigilant enough and parked the car at a safe and proper parking, then the theft could have been awarded.”

2. Aggrieved by the Order dated 14.08.2017 of the District Forum, both the parties filed Cross Appeals before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 01.12.2017 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company/Respondent and allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Complainant and affirmed the Order of the District Forum with certain modifications.
3. The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission dated 14.08.2017 is reproduced as under:-

“ 12. Now the question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Forum was right in ordering refund of the amount of IDV, after deducting 10% towards depreciation therefrom and also not awarding compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant holding that the driver of the vehicle, was found to be carless, as referred to above.

               First coming to the findings given with regard to ordering refund of the amount of IDV, after deducting 10% towards depreciation, it may be stated here that the same is not justified. The Forum has wrongly relied on table given under Section 1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The said percentage-wise deduction has been given only with regard to replacement of parts, in case of accident/damage to the vehicle and not in case of theft of the vehicle. It was to be made applicable, only in case, a claim is raised in respect of repair of the vehicle, damaged in an accident.  On the other hand, it has been clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy under the heading “THE SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION FOR FIXING IDV OF THE VEHICLE” that IDV shall be treated as the ‘Market Value’ throughout the policy without any further depreciation. Under above circumstances, it is held that the Forum was wrong in ordering refund of the amount of IDV, after deducting 10% towards depreciation. It is therefore held that the complainant is entitled to amount equal to IDV i.e. Rs.5,39,778/-, alongwith interest from the date of repudiation of her claim.

                Now coming to the findings of the Forum with regard to non-award of compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant holding that the driver of the vehicle, was found to be little careless, as had he parked the vehicle, at a safe and proper parking place, theft could have been avoided. As stated above, the mere fact that the vehicle in question, was parked in a no parking zone of the hotel, in question, has no nexus with its theft. Thieves can steal a vehicle, from any place, which they want, which has happened in the present case also. Number of cases have been heard that the vehicles have been stolen by thieves, even when the same were parked in a ‘Paid Parking’. Under these circumstances, the Forum was wrong in not awarding compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant, as also litigation expenses.

13.            In view of above, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, suffers from illegality warranting the interference of this commission, by modification thereof.

14.            For the reasons recorded above, First Appeal No.218 of 2017 filed by Jeevan Lata is accepted. The opposite party/IFFCO Tokio Insurance Co. Limited, is directed as under: -

1.            To pay the amount of the IDV of the said vehicle i.e. Rs.5,39,778/- alongwith interest @9% p.a., whereof 07.04.2017 (the date when the claim was repudiated).

2.            To pay compensation in the sum of Rs.40,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the  complainant.

3.            To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the  complainant.

4.            The directions given at sr.nos. (i) to (iii), shall be complied with, by the opposite party, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the interest at sr.no.(i) shall be payable @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a., on the amount of Rs.5,39,778/- whereof 07.04.2017 (the date when the claim was repudiated) and the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (ii) and (iii), shall carry  interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint before the Forum, till realization.

15.               In view of order passed above, First Appeal No.228 of 2017, filed by the appellant/IFFCO Tokio Insurance Co. Ltd., is dismissed with no order as to cost, having been rendered infructuous.”

4. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same in detail, when the findings of both the fora are concurrent on facts.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned Counsel of the Petitioner/ Complainant argued that on 08.12.2015 the Petitioner’s car was stolen from Royal Residency Hotel, Aligarh, UP and the information regarding theft was immediately reported to the police at P.S Banna Devi. Consequently, FIR bearing No. 583 was registered by the police on 09.12.2015. The Petitioner provided all necessary documents and information to the Respondent and completed all formalities to settle the insurance claim. However, the Respondent failed to settle the claim even after 1 year. The Petitioner issued a legal notice dated 10.12.2016, demanding the claim to be settled within seven days of receipt of the legal notice. The Petitioner/Complainant filed Consumer Complaint, CC/06/2017 on 02.01.2017 before the Ld. District Forum UT-II at Chandigarh. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Respondent closed the claim as “NO CLAIM” vide letter dated 07.04.2017. The State Commission has ordered that interest on the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of ₹5,39,778/- at a rate of 9% per annum be paid from the date the claim was repudiated, although it should have been calculated from the date of the theft.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Respondent vide its letter dated 29.01.2018 had complied with the State Commission’s Order and settled the case by depositing Rs. 6,28,775/- in favour of the Petitioner.
8. After going through the Order of the State Commission and District Forum and the grounds raised in the present Petition, the central issue is whether the interest on the claim amount should be given from the date of repudiation of claim or from the date of theft.  It is seen that the Petitioner has reiterated contentions already presented before the State Commission and the District Forum, without introducing any new substantial arguments justifying interference with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission. The State Commission has aptly adjudicated on the merits of the case.  There is no question of law involved, which require any intervention of this Commission.  No illegality is seen in the Order of the State Commission.  In the circumstances of the case, the State Commission has rightly allowed interest from the date of repudiation rather than the date of theft.
9. It is a well-established principle that this Commission has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission except for any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:

1. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“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 [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

2. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it”

3. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, wherein it was held 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 exercise 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 court 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.” 

d.   Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors, [(2016) 8 SCC 286] decided on 02.08.2016, wherein it was 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 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 reason” 

5. Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022, wherein it was held 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. .....”

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Revision Petition is dismissed.

11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.