1.      This Revision Petition has been filed under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 09.12.2020, passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada (‘State Commission’) in FA No.98 of 2018 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order dated 09.10.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur (“District Forum”) in CC No.22 of 2017, wherein the Complaint was allowed in part.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint before the District Forum. Sri Kasi Viswanatha Fertilisers is identified as Complainant. Union Bank of India is OP-1 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is identified as the OP-2.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant is engaged in fertilizers and pesticides business in Ganapavaram village. He opened an OCC account with the OP-1 Bank, hypothecating stocks with a limit of Rs.10,00,000. OP-1 Bank facilitated insurance coverage for the stocks by deducting premiums from the OCC account. However, the insurance policy obtained from the OP-2 Insurer expired on 19.06.2016. Upon discovering the policy expiry, the Complainant requested OP-1 Bank to renew the policy and on 09.09.2016, the OP-1 Bank deducted Rs.5,750 from the OCC account towards insurance premium and assured the Complainant of sending a DD to OP-2 Insurer. The OP-1 verified the available stock in the Complainant's godown on 21.09.2016and and acknowledged the sane. Subsequently, heavy rain damaged the fertilizer stocks on 22.09.2016. Despite the Complainant informing OP-1 about the incident and damage, the premium DD was sent only on 23.09.2016, as acknowledged by OP-2 on 27.09.2016. However, OP-2 refused to issue a policy retrospectively from 03.10.2016. Being dissatisfied with the response and alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant forwarded a legal notice to OP-1, prompting a reply on 10.02.2017 containing false allegations. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

4.      In reply, OP-1 Bank refuted the allegations and contended that the forum lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters of a commercial nature, which should be addressed by a civil court. The transaction between the parties is purely commercial. The Complainant failed to inform the bank of the alleged location of the damaged stock caused by floods. As per the hypothecation agreement, the complainant was required to submit periodic stock statements, which it failed to do until 25.08.2016. There was no need for them to inspect the Complainant's premises. The dispatch of DD for policy renewal has not relevance to the case. If any loss occurred due to non-renewal, the bank would be accountable. The notice issued by the Complainant on 30.01.2017 was deemed sufficient, and subsequent communications do not alter this fact. The certificate from the Tehsildar does not disclose the value of the damaged stock, and the godown was not covered by insurance policy. There was no negligence on the part of OP-1.

5.      In reply, OP-2 contended that even if the allegations were true, there is no deficiency in service on their part. They are not necessary or proper party to the case. The OP-1 failed to take steps for renewal of the policy for the stock, which had already expired. It was only after damage to the stock due to cyclone on 22.09.2016, OP-1 forwarded a DD along with a letter for policy renewal, which was received by OP-2 on 27.09.2016. As OP-2 returned the DD, there is no cause of action against them, and thus, the complaint be dismissed against them.

6.      The learned District Forum, vide order dated 09.10.2017 allowed the complaint in part and directed the OP1- Bank as under:

“i. The 1^st  opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,01,425/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs, one thousand, four hundred and twenty five only) towards the value of the damaged stock, and together with Interest @9% p.a., from the date of damage of stocks i.e., from 22-09-2016 till the date of realisation, to the complainant..

2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towards compensation for mental agony etc., to the complainant.

3. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, to the complainant.

4. The 1^st opposite party is directed to comply the above order, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the District Forum order dated 09.10.2017, the OP-2-Bank filed First Appeal and the State Commission vide order dated 09.12.2020 dismissed the Appeal as follows:

“9.  Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the entire record.

10.  Basing on the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and

2) Whether there are any grounds to set aside the impugned order.

Point Nos. 1 & 2:

11. Both the points are inter-twined with each other, therefore, we are inclined to address both the points simultaneously, to avoid recapitulation of facts.

12. Before considering the legality or otherwise of the findings of the District Forum, it is apt to refer the admitted facts. The complainant has been carrying on fertilizers and pesticides business in Ganapavaram village, Rajupalem Mandal of Guntur District, since 25 years. The 1^st opposite party is the Andhra Bank branch at Rajupalem of Guntur District, the 2^nd opposite party is the United India Insurance Company Limited branch office at Narasaraopet. The 1^st  opposite party sanctioned OCC loan with a limit of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant for business purpose. Ex.A-1 is the sanction letter issued by the 1st opposite party on 29.07.2016. The complainant hypothecated the stocks with the 1st opposite party bank in view of sanctioning of OCC. The 1st opposite party had taken Exs.B-3 to B-1 insurance policies, covering the risk of the stock, from the 2^nd opposite party for the periods from 1) 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014, 2) 19.06.2014 to 18.06.2015 and 3) 20.06.2015 to 19.06.2016 respectively. On 10.09.2016, the 1^st opposite party addressed a letter Ex.A-2 to the 2^nd opposite party. On 22.09.2016, the fertilizers stock of the complainant was damaged due to heavy rain. On the same day, the complainant addressed a letter Ex.A-3 to the Agricultural Officer, intimating the damage of the stock. On 30.09.2016, the complainant addressed a letter Ex-A-4 to the Tahsildar, Rajupalem, intimating the damage of the stock. On 27.09.2016, the complainant addressed a letter Ex.A-5 to the 1^st opposite party. On 23.09.2016, the V.R.O. issued Ex.A-6 certificate in favour of the complainant. On 28.09.2016, the complainant got issued a notice Ex.A-7 to the 1^st opposite party. On 30.09.2016, the complainant got issued letter Ex.A-8 to the 1^st opposite party. Ex.A-9 is the borrower's statement, dated 21.09.2016. Ex.A-10 is the certified copy of the bank statement. Ex.A-11 is the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Rajupalem. On 29.09.2016, the 1^st opposite party addressed a letter Ex.A-12 to the 2^nd opposite party. On 03.10.2016, the 2^nd opposite party issued a reply Ex.A-13 to the 1^st opposite party. On 02.11.2016, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the 1^st opposite party, directing it to pay the damages. On 15.11.2016, the 1^st opposite party got issued reply Ex.A-15. On 03.01.2017, the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A-16 to the 1^st opposite party. On 10.02.2017, the 1^st opposite party issued reply to the complainant. Ex.B-5 and B-6 are insurance policies obtained by the complainant subsequent to the incident.

13.      The learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party (appellant) strenuously submitted that non-intimation of risk location as well as the non-supply of the stock statement in time, by the complainant, is the root cause for delay in renewal of the policy which aspect is not considered by the District Forum in right perspective.

14.      For contra, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that non-taking of timely action by the 1^st  opposite party eventually caused huge loss to the complainant. A perusal of the record reveals that the 1^st opposite party has taken Exs.B-3, B-2 and B-1 policies, on behalf of the complainant, with effect from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014, 19.06.2014 to 18.06.2015 and 20.06.2015 to 19.06.2016 respectively, covering the risk of the stock in trade from the 2^nd opposite party. A duty is cast on the 1^st  opposite party to initiate action for renewal of the policy on or before 19.06.2016. Even as per the version put forth by the 1^st opposite party, there is no obligation on the part of the complainant to renew the policy. It is not in dispute that on 09.09.2016, the 1^st opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.5,750/- towards insurance premium from the OCC account of the complainant. Ex.A-2 is the letter alleged to have been addressed by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party. On 29.09.2016, the 1^st opposite party addressed a letter Ex.A-12 to the 2^nd opposite party, the relevant portion reads as under:

"Suddenly, on 22.09.2016 the borrower telephoned and informed that his stock of fertilizer at Ganapavaram was inundated with heavy water due to breach of tanks and heavy rains. Immediately, we have informed you the claim intimation and your goodselves have informed that the policy was not renewed due to non-receipt of said DD. Later, it was observed that the DD was in transit."

A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the 1^st opposite party did not send the DD to the 2nd opposite party on 10.09.2016.

15.      On 03.10.2016, the 2nd opposite party addressed a letter Ex.A-13 to the 1^st opposite party, the relevant portion reads as under:

      “We did not receive premium fr M/S.KASI FERTILIZERS and for the other renewals also. On 09/09/2016 DD was taken for M/s KASI VISWANATHA FERTILIZERS only and not for the other clients whose policies also expired in the month of June, 2016. According to the DTDC courier receipt the booking for the DD was made on 23/09/2016 a day after the loss intimation received by you (mentioned in your letter).

      Unless and until premium is not present in our books the risk has no insurance coverage. According to section 64VB condition as the premium was not realised by the company before the time of happening of loss ie. 22/09/2016 we cannot assume the risk and we are unable to accept your intimation.

      We can provide insurance coverage for the fresh books excluding the damaged stocks if you send us a written request along with the DD. We are returning your DD numbered 258783 000011000 for amount of Rs.5,750/-dated 09/09/2016."

A perusal of Ex.A-13 clearly reveals that the 1^st opposite party sent the DD on 23.09.2016, one day after the incident to the 2^nd opposite party. In view of the recitals of Exs.A-12 and A-13, no credence or credibility can be attached to Ex.A-2 letter, so far as its despatch is concerned. The 1^st  opposite party neither renewed the policy on 20.06.2016 nor sent the DD on 09.09.2016. No explanation is came forward from the 1^st opposite party, the reasons for delay in not sending the DD to the 2^nd opposite party on 09.09.2016. Basing on the material available on record, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the 2nd opposite party received the DD from the 1st opposite party on 27.09.2016 much after the incident.

16. The 1^st opposite party has taken a plea that the complainant did not inform the risk location to it, at least on 09.09.2016. In Exs.B-2 and B-3, the risk location is shown as 'Door No.414, Ganapavaram village'. In Ex.B-1, the risk location is shown as 'Rajupalem post and mandal'. The fact remains that the complainant is having a godown in Ganapavaram village  for the purpose of storage of hypothecated stock. In Ex.A-2, the 1^st opposite party itself mentioned the risk location as 'Door No.757, Ganapavaram village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. If the complainant did not inform the risk location, how the 1^st  opposite party has shown the risk location in Ex.A-2. If really the complainant did not inform the risk location to the 1^st  opposite party, how it addressed Ex.A-12 letter to the 2^nd  opposite party, intimating the damage of the stock of the complainant at Ganapavaram village. On 02.11.2016, the complainant got issued a notice Ex.A-14, directing the 1^st  opposite party to produce proper documents to prove on which date the DD was sent to the 2^nd  opposite party. The gist of Ex.A-15 reply is that non-furnishing of risk location particulars by the complainant is the root cause for non-renewal of the policy. On 30.01.2017, the complainant got issued Ex.A-16 legal notice, directing the 1^st opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- towards damages of the stock. The 1^st opposite party issued a reply notice Ex.A-17, dated 10.02.2017 reiterating its earlier version. If really the reason for delay in renewing the policy is non-disclosure of the risk location by the complainant, the same might have been reflected in Ex.A-11 letter, dated 20.10.2016, addressed by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party. After realizing the mistake committed by it, the possibility of taking of plea of non-disclosure of risk location by the complainant is the main cause for delay in renewal of the policy, in order to absolve the liability of the 1st opposite party cannot be ruled out completely. A perusal of Ex.A-12 letter, at a glance, clearly reveals the negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party in not renewing the policy. The Manager of the 1^st opposite party came to know about the expiry of the policy on 18.08.2016, however, the DD was taken on 09.09.2016. The DD was sent to the 2nd opposite party on 23.09.2016. Basing on the above referred factual scenario, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the 1s opposite party failed to renew the policy immediately after the expiry of the previous policy on 18.06.2016. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is apt to extract the relevant portion of paragraph 6 of the written version, which reads as under.

"If at all such renewal is not there and any loss would have been sustained this opposite party is answerable."

It is a settled principle of law, any unconditional admission made by the opposite party in the written version is binding on it. By making the above said admission, the 1^st opposite party itself has undertaken to indemnify the loss incurred by the complainant due to the acts of the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party in unequivocal terms admitted that a duty is cast on it to take the insurance policy on behalf of the complainant, immediately after expiry of the previous policy period. The inaction, on the part of the 1^st opposite party in renewing the policy, on behalf of the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service as contemplated under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act.

17.      A perusal of Exs.A-3, A-4, A-8 and A-11 clearly reveals that the complainant stored the fertilizers and pesticides in Door No.757, Ganapavaram village of Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. A perusal of Ex.A-10 reveals that an amount of Rs.5,750/- was deducted from the OCC Cas account of the complainant. A perusal of Ex.A-9 reveals that the 1^st  opposite party verified the stock available in the godown of the complainant on 21.09.2016. As per Ex.A-9, the godown is situated in Ganapavaram village. In Exs.B-5 and B-6, the risk location is shown as building, bearing No.2-18 of Ganapavaram village. Exs.B-5 and B-6 are subsequent to the incident. The possibility of shifting of the premises immediately after the incident cannot be ruled out completely. These two documents are no way helpful to the 1^st opposite party. As per the recitals of Ex.A-12, the complainant incurred a loss of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The 1^st opposite party itself admitting that the loss incurred by the complainant is nearly Rs. 12,00,000/-. The material available on record clinchingly establishes that the complainant incurred loss of Rs.13,00,000/- due to the heavy rains.

18. The District Forum considered the material available on record in right perspective and arrived at a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum has assigned reasons much less cogent and valid reasons to its findings. We are fully endorsing with the findings recorded by the District Forum. There is no flaw in the impugned order, which warrants interference of this Commission. Viewed from any angle, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party No.1.

19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.”

8.      The learned Counsel for OP-1 asserted that the statement of stock was not submitted prior to the date of flood i.e. 22.09.2016. It was in fact submitted on 29.09.2016 that too, without corresponding bills/stock purchase details. No details as to where the stock stored (in the Shop or godown) was given. The acknowledgment dated 21.09.2016 was concocted, fabricated and forged. No such statement dated 19.09.2016 was ever submitted. OP-1 sought to set aside the concurrent findings of both the fora below and dismiss the complaint.

9.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/ Complainant argued in favour of concurrent findings of both the Fora below.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (11) SCC 269;

(ii) Momma Gown Vs. Scooter India Ltd., 2014 (13) SCC 307;

(iii) Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel vs. H & R Joshnson (India) Ltd., (2016) 8 SCC 286.

10.    The learned Counsel for OP-2 argued in favour of the impugned orders passed by the fora below. He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition qua the OP-2 with costs.

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

12.    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 by detailed order that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. 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 with well reasoned orders. Therefore, 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 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.

13.    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. .....”

14.    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.

15.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 09.10.2017 is modified to the extent that the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded on account of mental agony etc. 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.

16.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

17.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.