1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (for short, the State Commission), M/s Jai Bharat Breeding Farm and Mr. Kartar Singh / Petitioners/Complainants filed this Revision Petition No. 4641 of 2013 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company and Respondent No.2/ Bank respectively). The Complaint filed by the Complainants being Consumer Complaint No. 08/2012 before the District Forum was dismissed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 12.06.2013 is reproduced as under:-

“The Opposite Party also appointed its surveyor i.e. Rajan Sarda and the relevant portion of his report is as follow:-

“The insured has taken insurance policy on 15.03.2010 for stocks, building and machinery. The damages shed and machinery was completed in the month of June, 2010 as narrated by insured. Thus, the building and machinery of the damaged shed was under construction at the time of purchase of policy cover note. The insured has reflected in the balance sheet as at 31.03.2020, machinery under construction.”

The Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another’s Vs. Pushpa Chhabra, (2010)3CPC 383 has held that ‘Insurance company repudiated the claim on the basis of report submitted by the surveyor-factum of accident and damage to the vehicle doubtful-in view of report of surveyor, claim filed by the complainant could not be granted-Compensation granted by the State Commission set aside- Revision petition allowed.’

In this case, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on similar facts and the facts are totally applicable on the present complainant. Therefore, the complainant is dismissed on the basis of above mentioned law point. Parties will bear their own costs.”

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 06.09.2013. The relevant portion of the Order dated 06.09.2013 is reproduced as under:-

“After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as from the perusal of documents available on record, we are of the view that the insurance policy was obtained by the complainants on 15.03.2010 whereas as per the report of surveyor the damaged shed and machinery at the premises of complainants were installed in the month of June, 2010 i.e. after the issuance of insurance policy, therefore, the same could not have been covered under the insurance policy. It was under these circumstances that the District Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case dismissed the complaint.

Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.”

3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that the Petitioners had purchased a Standard and Special Perils Policy bearing No. 261300/11/2010/1172 from Respondent No. 1, effective from 15.03.2010 to 14.03.2011, covering a poultry farm for a sum insured of Rs.2,97,00,000/-. The Surveyor vide its report dated 31.12.2010 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11,56,367/-. The Respondent No.1 wrongfully repudiated the claim of the Petitioners vide letter dated 10.03.2011. The premium for a constructed shed is more than a shed under construction. The premium was collected at a higher rate thereby meaning that the building was completed at the time of securing the Insurance Policy.
6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 argued that Respondent No.1 had correctly repudiated the claim of the Petitioners via letter dated 10.03.2011. The affected building, i.e., the shed, was completed in June 2010, after the Policy was taken on 15.03.2010.
7. Have gone through the Orders of the State Commission, District Forum and the grounds raised in the present Petition, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners have reiterated their contentions which were already raised before the State Commission and District Forum and no new substantial arguments have been raised here to warrant interference to the well-reasoned Orders of the State Commission and District Forum. The Complainants had taken a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy from Respondent No.1 on 15.03.2010 for stocks, buildings and machinery. The Cover Note of the Insurance Policy has been reproduced herein :

“Rs. 1,25,00,000/- One crore twenty five lacs on complete building including boundary wall, poultry shed, labour rooms, feed godown, foreman room, genset room, office premises, water tanks built of Ist Class construction. Building to use for poultry farm.”

Respondent No.1 upon intimation of the loss appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss of Rs.11,56,367/- less 5% excess i.e. Rs.10,98,549/-. The relevant portion of the Surveyor Report has been reproduced herein:

"The insured has taken insurance policy on 15.03.2010 for stock, building and machinery. The damaged shed and machinery was completed in the month of June 2010 as narrated by insured. Thus the building and machinery of the damaged shed was under construction at the time of purchase of policy cover note. The insured has reflected in the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2010, Machinery under installation and building under construction. The fact should be duly considered at the time of settling the claim.”

The Petitioner, Kartar Singh had made a written statement dated 06.07.2010 whereby he had admitted that shed no.6 to be completed in May-June 2010. Therefore, the damaged shed and machinery could not have been covered under the terms of the Insurance Policy, as they were not in existence at the time of Policy issuance. The District Forum has given a detailed and well-reasoned Order. There is no question of law involved, which requires any intervention of this Commission. No illegality is seen in the Order of the State Commission.

8. Further, it is a well-established principle that this Commission has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission except for any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:

1. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“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 [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

2. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it”

3. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, wherein it was held as under:

“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 exercise 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 court 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.” 

4. Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. [( 2016) 8 SCC 286] decided on 02.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:

“23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reason” 

5. Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022 , wherein it was held as under: 

“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. .....”

9. In view of the above discussion, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are upheld.