Per Mr Subhash Chandra, Member

       This revision petition filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 50 of 2016 which was dismissed by order dated 09.02.2016. This appeal has been filed against order dated 07.09.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haryana (in short ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 38 of 2014.

2.    The brief facts of the case are that respondent/ complainant had insured his vehicle, a Bolero, registration no. HR 34 C – 4148, with the petitioner company vide Policy no. 3362/00815788/000/00 for a total Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.3,80,000/- for the period from 14.03.2013 to 13.03.2014. The said vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 22/23.05.2013, when it was parked by the driver in the village Sidipur, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. An FIR was lodged by the driver of respondent/ complainant at Jarwa police station on 26.05.2013. The petitioner/ insurance company was informed on 10.06.2013 for the first time about the theft, vide claim intimation form no.1257376, after a delay of 17 days. The claim of the complainant/ petitioner was repudiated vide letter dated 30.11.2013 on the ground of delayed information to petitioner – insurance company.

3.    Against the repudiation of the claim, complaint in CC no.38 of 2014 was filed by respondent before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Narnaul on 04.03.2014 The District Forum vide its order dated 07.09.2015 held as under :-

“complaint of complainant is allowed with costs and op-1 directed to pay 75% of ITV of the rehire to the complainant along with interest @ of 10% per annul from the of date of filing of present complaint till realization, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges to the respondent”.

4.    Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the insurance company has preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Haryana in FA no.50 of 2016 against the order dated 07.09.2015. The State Commission also dismissed the first appeal vide its order dated 04.02.2016 with refund of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Insurance Company on 22.06.2016 impugning the order of the State Commission.

5.    The petitioner/ insurance company’s case is that respondent is not entitled to any claim as there is violation of policy conditions and the claim was filed much after the incident of theft. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that the District Forum and the State Commission have considered the matter which was argued by the petitioner on the same grounds and the submissions on behalf of the respondent have been upheld by the lower fora.

6.    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the records carefully. From the facts, evidence and arguments advanced before us, it is apparent that there is no new issue that has been highlighted in the course of arguments.

7.    This Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its conclusion on facts. It can interfere with the 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(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prime facie error appears in the impugned order and different interpretation of same set of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, has 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 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.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors – (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 and held as under:

“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting 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 reasons.”

10. The grounds urged before us by the petitioner are that the delay of 17 days in intimation of theft was inordinate and unexplained since it is a condition of the policy that notice shall be given in writing immediately by the insured in respect of theft or a criminal act which may be the subject matter of the claim. In this connection, it is also stated that the fora below has failed to consider the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs Parvesh Chander Chadha in CA No. 6739 of 2010. From the documents on record and the arguments advanced, it is evident that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the State Commission in the appeal, i.e., the delay in intimation of theft of vehicle to the petitioner. Findings on facts of the District Forum and State Commission are based on evidences and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction.

11. It is apparent that the foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. These orders are based on evidence on record. The petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse. We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.