1.      This Revision Petition No.602 of 2019 challenges the impugned order of the learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (‘the State Commission’) dated 01.11.2018. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. A/16/91 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gondia (‘the District Forum’) dated 28.01.2016.

2.      As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 20 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.  For the reasons stated in I.A. No.5017/2019, the delay is condoned.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants are that the Complainant Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 who are respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 herein are the legal heirs of the deceased Mangalsingh Parihar. They filed a Consumer Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations, in brief, that the deceased Mangalsingh Parihar had purchased ten policies of which details are given by them in Para No. 5 of the complaint filed before the District Forum. Those policies were issued by the Petitioners/ O.P. Nos. 1&2 who are officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).  The deceased Mangalsingh Parihar was serving in Forest Department as Forest Guard. He was killed by some culprits and First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the Respondent No. 1 with Police. The dead body of Mangalsingh Parihar was thrown in "Bagh" river Amgaon by the culprits. The police prepared Spot Panchanama during the investigation. Police also prepared Inquest Panchanama upon recovery of certain parts of the body of deceased Mangalsingh Parihar from the said river. After due investigation charge sheet was filed in the Court for the offences under sections 302,343,201,364 read with section 34 of the IPC. The Complainants thereafter submitted the claim under the policies. As the Petitioners did not settle their claim, they served notice dated 22.01.2014 on the Petitioners, but no cognizance was taken. Hence, they filed a Complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Gondia seeking direction to the Petitioners to settle their insurance claim and further claiming Rs. 9,40,000/- towards insurance claim for the death of insured Mangalshingh Parihar. They also claimed interest at the rate of 12% p.a. over that amount from the date of death of Mangalsingh.  They also claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with litigation cost.

4.      In their reply, the Petitioners/OPs resisted the complaint. They admitted material fact that deceased Mangalsingh Parihar purchased ten policies described in the complaint from them on various dates mentioned. They also admitted that the Respondents are the legal heirs of Mangalsingh Parihar and submitted claim under those policies alleging death of Mangalsingh Parihar. It is the defence of the Appellants, in brief, that only some body parts of a deceased person was recovered by the police and there upon clothes & bones in wrapped in sealed condition were handed over to the police constable for being sent the same to the expert opinion to Forensic & Anatomy Department of Government Medical College, Nagpur for determining the age, sex and cause of death of the said person. The brain matter of the said person was also preserved during post mortem examination and sent for chemical analysis. As per post mortem report the death of the policy holder namely Mangalsingh Parihar could not be established conclusively. Moreover, the sample of teeth, bone (Femur) and blood of the respondents were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Maharashtra State, Mumbai for DNA Test and result of analysis and opinion given after analysis was to the effect that "The unknown deceased person is excluded to be biological father of suspected son Hemendrasingh and suspected daughter Priyanka". Therefore, it is alleged by the appellants that the deceased person was not the policy holder and hence, the respondents are not entitled to claim benefits of the policies. The Petitioners therefore, requested that the complaint may be dismissed.

5.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 28.01.2016, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/Opposite Parties as under:

“1. The complaint is partly allowed.

2. The O.P. are directed to pay the amount of insurance claim under the policies bearing nos. 971684248, 971934953, 972080352, 972118943, 972521553, 972567738, 972753066, 972993572 along with profit and double accident benefit along with interest @ 9% p.a. from admission of case i.e. 17/11/2014 till its realization.

3. The O. P. are directed to pay ₹15,000/- towards compensation for mental torture & agony for non settlement of insurance claim of complainant along with ₹10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

4. The insurance claim in respect of policies bearing no. 972366711 and 973237165 are rejected because these are under lapse conditions.

5. The O.P. are directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

6. The O.P. are directed to comply the above order jointly or separately.”

6.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners filed an Appeal before the State Commission.  The learned State Commission, vide order dated 01.11.2018 dismissed the said Appeal with the following observations:

“12. We find that there is sufficient documentary evidence as discussed in impugned order to prove that the policy holder Mangalsingh Parihar died & then some parts of his body was subsequently recovered by police as per panchanama. The material question involved in the present case is as to whether the death of deceased Mangalsingh Parihar was occurred accidentally or not? We find that there is no eye witness of the incident in which the deceased Mangalsingh Parihar died. Therefore, we find that in the absence of any specific evidence showing circumstance under which the death of Mangalsingh Parihar had occurred, the reasonable inference can be drawn on the basis of Inquest Panchanama filed on record that his death falls within the preview of accidental death for the purpose of making insurance claim under the aforesaid policies,

13. The facts and circumstances of the present case discussed above are totally different from the case of Rita Devi(Smt.) and others (Supra) relied on learned advocate of the appellant. In that case the claim was made under sections 163-A and 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In that case the deceased was he driver of an auto rickshaw. Under the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the death of driver of that auto was accidental murder. In the instant case we find that as there is no evidence to show that it was intentional murdered. The parts of the body of deceased Mangalsingh Parihar were found in the river. Hence, it can be presumed that his death was accidental. Hence, the aforesaid decision in the case of Rita Devi relied on by the appellant's advocate is of no assistance to the appellants.

14. On the contrary, we find that the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned advocate of the respondents are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

15. Thus, we are of the considered view that there is no merits in this appeal as the learned District Consumer Forum has properly considered the evidence & circumstances brought on record reached to correct conclusion. The appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

i The appeal is dismissed.

ii. No order as to cost in appeal.

iii. Copy of order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.”

7.      The learned counsel for the Petitioners reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and asserted that the life assured was murdered intentionally because he had property dispute with some persons and therefore, intentional murder does not fall within the definition of accident and the repudiation of claim of damaged vehicle was justified as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  It is also averred that as per DNA report and analysis and opinion given after analysis was to the effect that “The unknown deceased person is excluded to be biological father of suspected son Hemendrasingh and suspected daughter Priyanka. He sought the impugned orders of the lower fora be set aside.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Sanrakshita Kumari Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., MANU/CF/0020/2018;

(b) LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Chinthareddy Vijayamma, R.P.No.2460 of 2013, decided on 25.01.2016 by NCDRC;

(c) Rita Devi and Ors. Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. and Ors., MANU/SC/0312/2000.

8.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Gangaram Rai Vs. LIC Reported in 2015 CJ (NCDRC);

(b) Manda Savarna Vs. LIC Reported in 1998 CJ (Trib.) 929;

(c) Pawan Kumari Vs. LIC, decided on 26.05.2016 by NCDRC.

9.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned 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.

10.    The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. This was primarily because the contention of the Petitioners with regard to the intentional murder are not supported by leading any cogent and convincing evidence has been led by the Petitioners-LIC of India. This order is now under challenge at the revision stage.

11.    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.

12.    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. .....”

13.    Similarly, in a recent order 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.

14.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed.  Simultaneously, the compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of mental torture & agony awarded by the District Forum is set aside in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable.

15.    The Petitioners (OPs) are also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainants as costs of litigation within a period of one month from the date of this order.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly     .