JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2.  The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant owns a Tata LPT 2515 lorry with Registration No. AP 16 TV 5009, which was insured with the Petitioners under Policy No. 10002/31/13/011082 until 25.10.2013. On 10.06.2013, the vehicle was involved in an accident near Kosangipuram Junction, NH-16 Road, Palasa, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. The incident was registered as an FIR in Crime No. 157/2013 by the Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District, resulting in a significant damage to the Complainant’s vehicle. After the accident, the Complainant promptly informed the Insurance Company/Petitioners, and a survey was conducted by their authorized surveyor. The Complainant then moved the vehicle to a mechanic shed for repairs. The surveyor assessed the loss, and subsequently, the Petitioners requested the Complainant on 26.09.2013 to submit the required documents for processing the claim. The Complainant duly submitted all necessary documents, including bills for the repairs incurred on the damaged vehicle. However, the Petitioners delayed in settling the claim without providing any valid reason. In response to this delay, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 24.11.2013 to the Petitioners, seeking resolution of the claim. Despite the notice, the Petitioners neither replied nor settled the claim. Consequently, aggrieved by the non-payment of the claim, the Complainant filed her complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Vijayawada.

 3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 15.09.2014 partly allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay to the Complainant Rs. 1,95,580/- with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization along with Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation costs. The Petitioner filed Appeal against the Order in the State Commission which dismissed it and upheld the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -

“8. As can be seen from this, the contention of the appellants is that the respondent is entitled only for a sum of Rs.61,882/- whereas the contention of the respondent is that she is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,71,150/-. We may point out that the Forum did not accept both the contentions, and basing on the actual expenditure incurred by the respondent it came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,95,580/-. We have examined the material and we completely agree with the findings of the Forum on this aspect. The claim of the respondent for Rs.3,71,150/- is only an estimation. Hence the estimation amount cannot be taken into consideration. Similarly the surveyor based his assessment by mentioning the price of spare parts and we do not find any material on the basis of which the price of each part was mentioned. Hence the report of the surveyor cannot form the basis to estimate the actual damage. However we find the original receipts filed by the respondent in proof of purchasing the spare parts and the payment of labor charges under cash receipts marked as Ex.A4. This material discloses that the respondent incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,95,580/- for the repairs of the vehicle. The appellants did not dispute the genuineness of this material by filling any rebuttal evidence. We may point out that the policy in question being one of indemnification, we are convinced that the respondent is entitled for the said amount.

 

9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Forum including the award of interest, compensation and costs. There are no merits in the appeal. 

 

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.”

 

4. Ld. Counsel for Petitioners has argued that that there is no evidence on record to support the claim that the Complainant/Respondent incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,95,580/-. The Respondent is not entitled to claim the entire bill amount, as it includes costs for wear and tear parts and vehicle usage, which should have been deducted as per policy conditions. Additionally, the value of replaced parts should have been depreciated according to policy terms; That both the lower Fora erred in disregarding the Final Survey Report dated 12.08.2013, which assessed the net liability of the Petitioners at Rs. 73,100/-. The Respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to dispute this liability. The District Forum allegedly relied on the bills without applying depreciation clauses and excluding wear and tear charges, contrary to settled legal principles. The Hon’ble Apex Court in "Sikka Papers Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 777" held that the Surveyor's Report should be relied upon unless there are legitimate reasons for departure; That numerous judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court highlight that the claimants are not entitled to benefits not covered in the insurance policy. The Respondent's bills from different workshops include wear and tear parts not covered by the policy, without sufficient evidence to support them. Therefore, the Respondent is not entitled to claim more than what was assessed by the licensed surveyor and loss assessor in the Final Survey Report.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent has argued that that the present Petition was filed after a delay of 61 days, and no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the same, other than administrative issues such as seeking the opinion of the present Counsel, decision-making processes regarding filing the Revision Petition, and unavailability of counsel. The delay alone warrants dismissal of the Petition, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in "Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)" which highlighted the importance of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes; That both the lower Fora have unanimously found and concluded that the Complainant's claim is genuine, and the Petitioner failed to settle the claim for various reasons. The District Forum specifically determined that the Complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,95,580/- based on original bills submitted for repairing the damaged vehicle. The Surveyor's assessment of damages at Rs. 61,882/- contradicts the estimate provided by authorized mechanics, which was Rs. 3,62,880/-.; That no legal questions are raised in the Petition, and the concurrent decisions of the lower Fora support the dismissal of the present Petition. 

6. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioners and Respondent and perused the material available on record.

7. It needs to be remembered that the decisions of both the Ld. Fora below are concurrent.  It is well settled that in its revisional  jurisdiction, this Commission cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence in a case of concurrent findings, and the scope available to this Forum in its revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on September 8, 2022”; in this regard has observed inter alia –

 “7.1 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.”

 

8. Again in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011, decided on 18.3.2011, the Apex Court had set aside the decision of this Commission by virtue of which the concurrent decisions of the Ld. District Forum and the State Commission, which had gone in favour of the Complainant, were set aside with the following observations –

“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 exercised 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 Courts 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.”

 

9. No serious question of Law could be identified in the grounds raised in the Revision Petition.  However, it was argued on behalf of the Petitioner/Insurance Company that the Bills and Vouchers filed on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant before the Ld. Fora below were not reliable since the details on workmanship were issued from Workshops which were different from the establishments from which corresponding vehicle parts had been allegedly purchased.  This Commission finds no merit in such contention. It is common knowledge that for repair of vehicles, the parts to be replaced are generally purchased from the shops who deal in supply of the same, whereas fitting those parts in the vehicles falls in the domain of skilled Mechanics or Workers in the Workshops which are not supposed to be Dealers of the spare parts.  So there is no infirmity in the bills and vouchers filed on behalf of the Complainant on this account.  It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the total of the bills filed on behalf of the Respondent/ Complainant was actually Rs. 1,74,700/- and not Rs. 1,95,580/- as determined by the Ld. District Forum.  Such amount was verified by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant who conceded that the actual total comes to Rs. 1,74,700/- only.  Consequently, there appears to be some clerical error in the Order of the Ld. District Forum, which was accepted by the Ld. State Commission without going into the question of calculating the actual total of the Bills and Vouchers on record.  From his side, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant was unable to draw attention to any other Bill of Voucher, which might not have been attached by the Petitioners with their Revision Petition.  

10. This Commission is also of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded to the Respondent/ Complainant @ 12% p.a. does appear to be excessive in the given circumstances.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Petition is allowed after modifying the impugned Orders to the extent that instead of Rs. 1,95,580/- towards compensation as awarded by the Ld. District Forum, the Respondent/ Complainant is actually entitled to Rs. 1,74,700/- on that count, and the rate of interest awarded at 12% p.a. is reduced to 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint. Rest of the directions contained in the impugned Orders shall remain unaltered.

12. The requisite payment shall be made by the Petitioners to the Respondent/Complainant within two months from the date of this Order failing which, any unpaid amount(s) shall attract interest at the rate of 12% per annum, till the date of its final realisation.

13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.