1.       This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 07.06.2016 in Appeal No. 738 of 2013 of the State Commission Punjab.  

2.       Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for the respondent.

Persued the record including inter alia the Order passed by the District Commission as well as the Order passed by the State Commission.

3.       The facts as they evince out from the record show that the insurance policy was taken by the complainant which was duly issued.  The same was valid on the date of the incident.  During the subsistence of the policy a fire broke out and various goods got gutted causing the loss of Rs.3,25,000/-.  The matter was reported to the police.  The surveyor was appointed but he approved the claim of Rs.35,351/- only.  The same amount was given to the complainant also.  Feeling aggrieved thus a complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service and the harassment caused by the petitioner / opposite party.

4.       After proceeding in accordance with law the District Commission allowed the complaint and made the following award:-

          “For the aforesaid reasons, we partly accept the complaint and direct the O.P. to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,63,464.95 (i.e. Rs. 2,98,815.95 – the amount already paid in the sum of Rs.35351/-) which interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. 04.2.2013 till date of payment with further direction to pay him a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs of filing of complaint within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

5.       Feeling aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Commission the appeal was filed before the State Commission. The whole matter was re-heard on merits and all aspects  of the case were re-considered and re-appraised but the State Commission did not find any good reason to differ with the view taken by the District Commission and thus deemed it fit to confirm the Order passed by the District Commission and dismissed the appeal.

6.       Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has once again attempted to reiterate the submissions that were placed before the two fora below and has tried to request to make a fresh re-appraisal of facts and re-appreciate the evidence.  According to learned counsel the surveyor had rightly approved the amount of Rs.35,351/-. It has been submitted that the surveyor’s report has its own sanctity and should not have been ignored. 

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has tried to justify the findings recorded by the District Commission as well as by the State Commission and has submitted that the Orders passed by the both the Commissions below are well-reasoned and there is no reason to interfere with it.

7.       Record has been perused in the light of the submissions made by learned counsels. It may be observed that while sitting in the revisional jurisdiction the Bench has to proceed within the statutory confines of the law as has been provided by the legislature in its wisdom.  The scope and the ambit of the revisional jurisdiction has its own defined periphery and the contours of its circumference are not very wide.  In order to succeed it has to be shown that the fora below have either transgressed its jurisdiction and have exceeded the same or that they have been guilty of committing the legal omission to exercise the jurisdiction which has been vested upon them.  The impugned Orders may also be shown to be suffering from some material irregularity or illegality.  But unless some such infirmities are demonstrable the higher fora is loath to meddle with the findings arrived at by the fora below.  The submissions which have been reiterated again by the learned counsel for the petitioner have already been well discussed and with the elaborate reasons shown have not found favour either with the District Commission or with the State Commission.  In fact though it is not needed to extensively extract out the Orders passed by the two Commissions below but just by quoting paragraph 6 of the State Commission’s Order all the relevant aspects will become clear as it simply captures the whole gamut of the issues involved:-

6. Now, we proceed to determine whether the report of surveyor is to be accepted in this case, as stressed by the counsel for the appellant before us in this appeal or not. The report of surveyor is Ex.C-2. The surveyor submitted the detailed report and found the loss of Rs.45,352/- and less policy excess of Rs.10,000/- was deducted and net loss was found payable as Rs.35,352/-. The OP issued cheque to the complainant, vide Ex.C-3 for the amount of Rs.35,351/- on the record. Affidavit of R.K. Jain, Sr. Branch Manager of OP Ex.OP-1 is on the record to the effect that surveyor has correctly assessed the loss of Rs.35,352/-. Affidavit of M.S. Sidhu, Surveyor and Loss Assessor is Ex.OP-2 on the record proving his report in this case. The District Forum discarded the report of the surveyor and preferred to rely upon the documentary evidence produced by the complainant in this regard. The surveyor collected documents in the shape of bills and so on from the insured. The photographs regarding loss to the books, stationery and so on are on the record, which was duly handed over to the surveyor. The complainant submitted the estimate of loss to the surveyor to the tune of Rs.3,35,286/-, which is contained at page no. 47 to 57 of the report of surveyor. The income tax return of the complainant is on the record, wherein gross total income shown as Rs.3,17,135/-. At page no.31, there is one bill issued by Balaji Traders of Rs.36,638.55 paise in favour of complainant, vide invoice no.00368 dated 07.05.2010 and it is VAT invoice. At page no.32 of the report of surveyor, there is another bill of Royal Traders of Rs.6177/- dated 07.05.2010 in the name of complainant. At page no.33, there VAT invoice of Rs.5066/- issued by Aggarwal Agencies to the complainant. At page no.34, is bill issued by Singla Book Depot of Rs.43,450/- dated 18.05.2010 in favour of complainant. Similarly, at page no.35 of the report of surveyor is VAT invoice issued by MB Dynamic Sales dated 18.05.2010 of Rs.30,048/- in favour of complainant. In the same manner, the bills issued by other agencies at page no.36 to page no.51 in the report of the surveyor has been examined by us. All these bills are immediately before eruption of the fire in this case on 21.05.2010. These bills cannot be said to be false documents. They have proved that the stock was stored in the shop of the complainant, as submitted by the complainant, but the surveyor has disregarded these bills. The counsel for the appellant referred to law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case “National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. M/s Jyothi Tobacco Traders” 2012(3)CPJ-464. The cited authority is distinguishable because herein there are cogent bills on the record to prove the loss to the extent as claimed by the complainant. The report of the surveyor can be discarded in the presence of proof of stock by means of bills, which was engulfed in the fire. Similarly, the law relied upon by appellant in “Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Gurubalappa Mallikarjun Umrani & others” 2012(3)CPC467/468 has been examined by us. The fact of this authority is on different pedestal. Herein, the bills are just before the date of fire in the close proximity of time and as such they proved that above said stock was stocked in the shop of the complainant. The surveyor has purposely disregarded the above referred bills, as discussed in the order of District Forum under challenge in this appeal. Consequently, we are ad-idem with the order of District Forum under challenge in this case. We find no illegality or material infirmity in the order of District Forum calling for any interference therein in this appeal. The order of District Forum is, thus, affirmed in this appeal by us.

8.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such jurisdictional error or material illegality or irregularity which may persuade the Bench to make a fresh de-novo re-appraisal of all the facts and re-appreciate the same. The bench also does not see any streak of perversity that might have been gone to vitiate the validity of the Orders passed by the fora below.  There is no reason enough to persuade this Commission to take a different view of the matter then what has been adopted or which may prompt the Bench to interfere in the concurrent findings returned by the fora below.

9.       Hon’ble Supreme Court too in its decision given in case of Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Anr., (2022) 9 SCC 31 has observed that in exercise of power in its revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission is not required to interfere with the concurrent findings given by the fora below on appreciation of evidence. Relevant extracts of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court may be quoted herein below:

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.     Similar views were expressed by the Apex Court in the earlier case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company (2011) 11 SCC 269.

11.     The bench has considered both the Orders passed by the fora below and the relevant record available, but feels constrained to observe that there is hardly any good reason which may persuade the Bench to take a different view in the mater other than what has already been taken or adopted by the two fora below.

12.    The present petition being bereft of merits stands dismissed as such.

13.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this petition and to their learned counsel as well to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.