1.      This Revision Petition No. 54 of 2021 challenges the order of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘State Commission’) dated 11.11.2020, vide which, the State Commission dismissed FA No.180/2020 filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (‘District Forum’) order dated 06.02.2020 in C.C. No.CC/17/561 where the Complaint was dismissed.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the Complainant’s son, late Dinesh Kumar Pandey, purchased a Maruti Swift Dezire VDI in May 2015 for personal use, financed through Opposite Party (OP) No. 2 (the Bank) with a loan of Rs. 8,14,713. The Complainant obtained an insurance policy from OP-1 (Insurer) for a premium of Rs. 25,074, covering the vehicle's value at Rs.6,83,913, valid from 14.05.2015, to 13.05.2016. The policy included a provision for zero depreciation for only the first two claims. In November 2015, the complainant’s son died in a car accident, resulting in the vehicle's total destruction. An accident report was promptly filed, and the insurance claim was submitted to OP-1 with the expectation of a full claim settlement. OP-1 paid Rs.6,00,000 to OP-2, leaving a balance of Rs.83,993, which the complainant had to cover personally. He also incurred additional expenses, such as vehicle transport costs and mental anguish. Being aggrieved he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking Rs.83,993/- towards rest amount of insurance claim and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of repairing the accidental vehicle and Rs.63,387.29 towards rest amount from OP-2 and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss and cost of litigation and other reliefs.

4.      In its reply filed before the District Forum, OP-1 acknowledged the claim and explained that the payment of Rs.6,00,000 was made after a thorough survey and assessment, as per policy terms. The delay in processing was attributed to awaiting the survey report. OPs denied any deficiency in service, stating that they followed standard procedures and the valuation considered the condition of the vehicle post-accident. For liability benefits (an additional Rs. 2,00,000), OP-1 claimed that a separate application with nominee details was required, which was not submitted by the Complainant. The OP-1 disputed the complainant’s claims for additional amounts and requests dismissal of the complaint. OP-2 did not submit a written statement.

5.      The District Forum, vide order dated 06.02.2020, dismissed the complaint with the following reasons:

15. The Complainant has alleged on the OP-2 in this case that the OP-2 Bank has deposited a sum of Rs. 536612.71 in the loan account in spite of Rs. 6,00,000/- received from the OP-1 Insurance Company and the rest amount of Rs. 63387.29 with the OP-2. This is clearly reflected in the case based on the objections of the said intention against the OP-2 by the complainant and the handling of the loan account statement Exhibit C-15. There is a dispute of settlement of accounts between the Complainant and the OP-2. We find that the dispute relating to adjustment of accounts is a dispute of civil nature. Disputes of civil nature can be resolved by a Civil Court. The District Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute civil in nation. Thus, the case filed against the OP-2 is not sustainable before this Forum. Thus, we do not find any variance in deficiency in service against the OP-2 at the point. Accordingly, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the OP-2 through this Forum. Therefore, the considerable point No. 2 is concluded as "No".

16. Since, the considerable question No. 1 and 2 are concluded in negatively. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief towards mental and financial loss. Therefore, the considerable point No. 3 is concluded as "No".

17. Upon the above consideration, we conclude that the act of the OP-1 does not fall under the category of deficiency in service and business misconception and the case is not sustainable against the OP-2. Consequently, we do not find proper ground to accept the complaint of the Complainant. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.

18. Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their cost of litigations themselves.”

6.      Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed FA No. FA/20/180 and the State Commission vide order dated 11.11.2020 dismissed the Appeal with following observations:

  “We have observed the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Ld. District Forum, which is passed in case No. CC/17/561. Also seen the records.

  Undoubtedly, the vehicle concerned was in debt and a loan account was with the OP-2. In addition to this, it is evident from the observation of the document submitted by the Complainant, which is Exhibit A-15, which is of that loan account that a sum of Rs. 1,28,03.29 along with interest was outstanding on the Complainant in spite of paying a sum of Rs. 5,36,612.71, which was deposited in that loan account, Therefore, this fact is not correct that only a sum of Rs. 5,36,612.71 was to be deposited to the Bank. In addition to this, we do not find any flaw or illegality or mistake in calculation upon the observation of the report of the surveyor that it cannot be questioned. If there is a debt load on the vehicle, then the first right on the sum assured is conveniently established to fulfil the said debt load.

  In the light of the overall, Hon'ble justice parables and other facts submitted are not helpful to the appellant. We do not see any fact, legal or factual after the overall consideration, on the basis of which it is appropriate to take the case for final hearing.

  Consequently, we dismiss this on the initial stage due to being baseless.

  The appellant himself bear the cost of this appeal. The certified copy of the order should be given to the Appellant at free of cost.”

7.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned State Commission, the Petitioner/ Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition No.54 of 2021.

8.      In his arguments, the Counsel for the Petitioner/ Complainant reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the insured amount (IDV) of the vehicle in question was Rs.6,83,993.  However, the OP paid Rs.6,00,000/-. He further argued that the insurance company without the consent of the complainant have transferred the amount of Rs.6 Lakh in the bank and the bank had deducted the amount of Rs.5,36,612.71 and the balance amount was not paid to the complainant.  He therefore sought to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

9.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/OP1 argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the Fora below. He further contended that payment of claim was made as per report of the surveyor. He sought dismissal the Revision Petition with costs and relied upon Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 507.the following judgment in support of his arguments:

10.    The Opposite Party No.2 did not appear despite service and therefore, the OP2 was placed ex-parte.

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of both the fora and rendered due consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties.

12.    The main issue in the present case is, whether the claim of the complainant paid by the OP is as per the terms of insurance contract between the parties? Is direct remittance of payment to Bank as per law? What is the further liability of OP towards the claimant, if any?

13.    While the complainant asserted his right to be paid the balance due as claimed, the OP contended that the amount of the insurance claim was paid as per the report submitted by the Surveyor. The said issue has already been dealt by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission.

14.    The learned District Forum answered all main issues and rendered a detailed and well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced. The learned State Commission, duly considered the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. Also, there are no significant grounds are reasons are advanced by the Petitioners/OPs which entails interference with such detailed and well reasoned orders.

15.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“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. .....”

16.    Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

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.

17.  In view of the aforesaid deliberations, the detailed and well reasoned Order of the learned State Commission dated 11.11.2020 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. In fact, the order is just and fair. Therefore, no intervention is warranted. The Revision Petition No. 54 of 2021 is, therefore, dismissed.

18.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.