BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER

For the Appellant         Ms Suman Bagga, Advocate 

For the Respondent      Mr Byrapaneni Suyodhan and Mr Kumar Shashank

                                Advocates for R 1

                                Unserved – R 2   

ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.      This Review Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) against order dated 09.02.2017 in FAIA No. 225 of 2016 in FASR 138 of 2016 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation under Section 24A.

2.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3.     Briefly put, the relevant facts of the case are that the Respondent purchased two life insurance policies on 11.12.2010 and 30.07.2011 respectively. The Policies (Nos. 835105727 and 855497350) were received on 08.01.2011 and 20.08.2011 respectively. As per Policy terms, premium was to be paid for the initial 10 years and maturity was in 2073 on attaining the age of 73 years. Admittedly, only one premium of Rs 5 lakhs was paid for the first Policy and two instalments of Rs 6 lakhs each for the second Policy. On 10.10.2014 respondent requested for cancellation of the second Policy which was declined by the appellant on 22.10.2014 on the ground that the Policy had lapsed due to default in payment, had no accrued cash value and surrender was permissible only after completion of 3 policy years. Respondent approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad (‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 33 of 2015 seeking refund of premium of Rs 17 lakhs paid towards both the Policies along with Rs 1 lakh for compensation and costs. The complaint was decided ex parte on 22.09.2015 directing repayment of Rs 17 lakhs with interest @ 9% with Rs 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs 2,000/- as cost. Petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal on learning about the order on 20.10.2015. However, the delay of 74 days was held by the State Commission to have not been sufficiently explained and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. This order is challenged before us on the ground that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the petitioner had been placed ex parte by the District Forum and was not in the knowledge of its order.

4.      In view of the admitted facts regarding the non-payment of instalments of the Policies in question, the limited issue before us is whether the impugned order ousting the petitioner on grounds of delay in filing the appeal is justifiable.

5.      It is manifest from the record that the District Forum decided the matter after placing the petitioner ex parte for failing to appear before it and present its case. Having been represented before the District Forum, and having been placed ex parte, it was incumbent on it to have pursued his case more diligently and appealed against the order before the State Commission timely. The petitioner delayed in doing so and the delay is sought to be explained on the grounds of lack of diligence of the counsel. The petitioner is not an individual but a corporate entity which has a legal department and is therefore expected to have been more careful in the monitoring and pursuit of its cases. The reasons for the delay in approaching the State Commission are routine and have justifiably been not considered by the State Commission.

6.      This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is, therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors  (2016) 8 SCC 286 decided on 02.08.2016 and T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 decided on 05.04.2019, revisional jurisdiction is warranted to be exercised in cases of concurrent findings on facts by the lower fora only where there is either a jurisdictional error or a material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the finding of the District Forum is based on the petitioner not contesting the complaint despite notice and entering appearance. There is no material irregularity or jurisdictional error alleged or established.    

7.      The order of the State Commission is well reasoned and is based on the petitioner failing to provide sufficient reasons that justify the delay. We therefore do not find the order to be perverse or arbitrary that warrants interference by this Commission. The Revision Petition is therefore found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

8.      In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of with this order.