JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant is the wife of Late Mr. Bakar Ali, who worked as a Guard on a contractual basis for Scooter India Company, and was also a farmer. On 26.01.2018, he was returning home after completing his duty at around 7:30 PM when he was hit by an unidentified vehicle while crossing the road, resulting in severe injuries. He was taken to Lokbandhu Hospital by nearby persons and subsequently referred to Trauma Medical Lucknow (KGMU). Unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries. As a farmer, he was insured under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna. Being head of the family, he was covered under this scheme, and upon his death, the Complainant submitted a claim under this insurance scheme on 02.05.2018. She deposited the claim form at Sarojini Nagar Tehsil, along with necessary documents, including the Family Register, Khasra, Khatoni, a spot report by the SHO Krishna Nagar, and other requisite documents. The claim was verified and endorsed by the Lekhpal Kanungo, the Tehsildar of the concerned area, and the SDM Sarojini Nagar. The verified claim form was then submitted to the DM Lucknow, who forwarded it to the Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., on 28.08.2018. Despite this, the claim was not processed even after four months, leading to significant financial hardship for the Complainant and her family. Upon receiving no response, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice on 01.12.2018 through her Advocate, demanding the claim amount along with interest. In response, the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company informed the Complainant on 30.11.2018 that her claim had been rejected. Aggrieved by the non-payment and wrongful rejection of the claim, the Complainant filed her complaint before the Ld. District Forum-II, Lucknow.

3. The District Forum vide  its Order dated 30.01.2021 partly allowed the complaint and directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. along with Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony. The Petitioner then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which dismissed the same and affirmed the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -

“…The name of the husband of the complainant was recorded in the Khatoni produced by the complainant before the District Commission, he was Bhoomidar farmer. The name of the complainant is recorded as his heir and the age of the complainant was 55 years and he was covered under the terms policy. The certificate of of Insurance the Gram Pradhan has also been produced, supports the facts mentioned which in the complaint.

The Appellant/Respondent Insurance Company has not produced any document, which may prove that the dead body was of any other person.

 

After examining the above all facts and evidences, this Bench is of opinion that the Ld. District Commission has passed the impugned judgment and order after analyzing all the facts properly and we don't deem fit to make any interference in the same. Accordingly the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

The present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the District Commission is confirmed.

The compliance of the judgment and order passed by the District Commission be made hundred percent within the period of 45 days, otherwise the interest shall be payable at the rate of 12 percent per annum.

If the appellant has deposited any amount in the present appeal, then the above amount deposited along with accrued interest be refunded to the concerned District Commission as soon as possible as per law. ”

 

4. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent, and perused the material available on record.

5. It is seen from the repudiation letter issued by the Petitioner that according to the Insurance Company the identification of the deceased Baker Ali was not confirmed in absence of the Police Panchnama and Post Mortem Report.

6. However, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant has drawn attention to the various documents, subsequently placed on record from his side, which were all part of the records of the Ld. Fora below, but copies of which were not filed by the Petitioner alongwith the Revision Petition.  The official letter No. 3412/Sat-Bhulekh/2018 dated 28.8.2018 issued by the Assistant District Magistrate, Lucknow, to the Petitioner (Annexure-R1), copy of the Final Report submitted by the Police in FIR No./Crime Case No. 73 dated 8.2.2018 (Annexure-R2), copy of the said FIR itself (Annexure- R3), Certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Basahi Akbalpur, Block Council- Lalganj, Azamgarh, dated 8.3.2018, the Death Certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth & Death of Department of Medical and Health, Nagar Nigam Lucknow (Annexure- R5), the Revenue records pertaining to the Khatoni held by the deceased Baker Ali (Annexure-R6) leave no scope to doubt that it was the said Baker Ali who was the victim killed as a consequence of the road accident of 26.1.2018, and since he had been taken to the Hospital by Constable CP 1433 Uday Veer Singh, PS Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow, after information of the accident had been received on the Police phone No. 100, so it was logical that his name would not be known to the said Constable, as no Member of his family was present at the spot at the relevant time.  He subsequently succumbed to his injuries before reaching the Lok Bhandhu Raj Narayan Combined Hospital, Lucknow, to which he had been referred from the Trauma Centre where he had initially been taken.

7. It has been urged by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that death of the said Baker Ali on account of accident is doubtful as there is no Post-Mortem Report available.  It may be further re-mentioned that the reason for the repudiation by the Petitioner-Insurance Company was “non-confirmation of identity of the deceased” and not non-availability of the Post-Mortem Report itself.

8. Even otherwise, from the original Policy (Annexure-R4), it is seen that as many as 9 separate documents accompanying the application for claim in the event of accidental death of the Insured are required to be submitted.  The list of those documents is on page 60 of the Paper Book, and Post-Mortem Report is not mentioned as a necessary document to be submitted alongwith the Claim Application.

9. It is well settled that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Commission cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence in a case of concurrent findings, and the scope available to this Forum in its revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on September 8, 2022”; in this regard has observed inter alia –

 “7.1 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.”

 

10. Again in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011, decided on 18.3.2011, the Apex Court had set aside the decision of this Commission by virtue of which the concurrent decisions of the Ld. District Forum and the State Commission, which had gone in favour of the Complainant, were set aside with the following observations –

“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.”

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission finds no grounds to interfere with the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below.  The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.