1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 11.06.2021, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad (‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1083 of 2014 wherein the learned State Commission partly allowed the said Appeal and reduced the awarded amount to Rs.7,91,743/- along with interest 7% p.a. from the date of claim i.e. 16.08.2011 till realization from Rs.11,31,062/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. which was awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (“District Forum”) in CC No.659 of 2011 vide order dated 31.07.2013.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 232 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.  For the reasons stated in I.A. No.4449 of 2022, the present Revision Petition is treated to have been filed within limitation.

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

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant had obtained Burglary Floater Policy covering their business goods for sum insured of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the Respondent/OP from 29.01.2010 to 28.01.2011. On 26.07.2010, Anil, a labourer informed the Complainant that 2 locks of the godown which were closed on 24.07.2010 are not there. The Complainant visited the site and found that two locks which were placed on shutter are missing, upon opening of the godown, the Complainant found that the goods were scattered and there was theft. He informed the police as well as the insurance company and filed a claim with the insurance company. However, the insurer repudiated the claim on account of no force was used and, therefore, the Complainant is not entitled any claim under the policy. Being aggrieved, they filed a complaint before the District Forum.

5.      In reply, the Respondent/OP contended that the Complainant’s claim was repudiated on ground that there was no sign on the hook (nakucha) of forcible entry and there was no burglary as per the policy terms and conditions and there is no deficiency of service.

6.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 31.07.2013, allowed the complaint and directed the OP as follows:

“ORDER

1. The opponent insurance company will pay the managing director or to authorized signatory of complainant Darshanik Marketing & Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs.11,31,062/- (Rs.eleven lacs thirty one thousand sixty two only) towards made at their godown with 8% interest from the date of repudiation of the claim 16/08/2011.
2. The opponent insurance company will pay the managing director or to authorized signatory of complainant Darshanik Marketing & Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complainant.
3. No order passed for the mental harassment.
4. Opponent Company will bear their cost.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Respondent/OP filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 11.06.2021 partly allowed the Appeal with following observations:

“8. looking to the facts, circumstances submission regarding both the sides judgement of the trial forum, first of all the complaint filed by the respondent were against two workers working in their shop but here police report in very much clear that theft were committed by using opening lock and lock were not traced out on the scene of offence that's why means of opening the lock must have to be without any regular keys or required procedure of opening the shop, that's why somehow it is attracted factual aspects with the Burglary because of any how force is to be utilized to open lock may be practice mal-skill to open the lock is to be considered somehow

9. That's why considering the peculiar facts of this case as we have discussed herein above, that the treated force skillfully used by the illegal person and that's why the trial court forum has considered according this view.

10. Learned advocate Mr. MJ Shelat further submitted that survey report is disclosing the stock of Rs.11,31,062/- Are assessed but somewhat on this nothing is on record that it was a stock totally under this circumstances the claim made by the respondent side is not looked into fully established on record.

11. Learned Advocate Mr M. V. Patel has submitted before me that the submission on behalf of the appellant side is not acceptable before the surveyor itself upon by the insurance company's report is to be consider truly where the assessment by the surveyor but here going through the report of this case the stock are assessed by the surveyor is not any how fully tallied with the stock patra etc. and thereby I would like to come to the conclusion that up to the 70% stock is to be treated acceptable stock for the sake of consideration on the present situation.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be partly allowed with certain modification in the order of the learned trial forum.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we pass following final order.

ORDER

i) Hereby the Order is partly allowed

ii) The judgment and order dated 31-12-2011 passed by the learned District Forum, Ahmedabad City in Complaint No. 659 of 2011 is modified are as under Hereby insurance company directed to pay Rs. 7,91,743/- Is ordered to be release to the respondent with 7% of interest On the date of the claim 16/08/2011.

iii)       The appellant is directed to apply to the Account Department of the State Commission with all details of C.M.A. NO./ Appeal No.466/2014 Xerox copy of the receipt to withdraw the amount deposited in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.

iv) No order as to costs.”

8.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and complaint filed before the District Forum and argued in favour of the District Forum order. He sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission and uphold the order passed by the District Forum.

9.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ OP contended that the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated under the policy in question on the ground that there was no forceful entry in the insured premises.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition as also the complaint.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

11.    Based on the information provided, it is evident that the insured premises was indeed covered under the policy in question, and a theft occurred during the policy's term, as evidenced by the police report confirming the burglary. The burglars gained entry by opening locks on the premises. Both the District Forum and the State Commission extensively reviewed the evidence and arguments presented before them. The District Forum issued a detailed order, and after careful consideration, the learned State Commission, concluded that no intervention was warranted in the District Forum's decision. However, the State Commission reduced the quantum of loss assessed by the surveyor due to discrepancies between the surveyor's assessment and the stock records.

12.    Given the absence of evidence presented by the Petitioner/ Complainant to justify increase in the compensation or challenging the State Commission's decision, it appears that the State Commission's order was well-reasoned and supported by the facts and evidence available.

13.    In summary, both District Forum and the State Commission thoroughly evaluated the case, and the State Commission's decision to uphold the District Forum's order with a reduction in the quantum of loss appears justified based on the information provided.

14.    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.

15.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs SBI & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 432/2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed:-

“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 foregoing deliberations, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the learned State Commission dated 11.06.2021 in First Appeal No.1083/2014. The instant Revision Petition No.555 of 2022 is, therefore, Dismissed.

18.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.