National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Ramgopal Sharma & Anr. on 20 October, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 02/03/2017 in Appeal No. 834/2014 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. PLOT NO. 6, 1ST FLOOR PUSA ROAD, NEAR METRO PILLAR NO. 81, NEW DELHI-110005 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAMGOPAL SHARMA & ANR. S/O. LT. SH. RAMESHWAR SHARMA,R/O. KHORI BRAHMANAN, POST RAGHUNATH GARH, DISTRICT-SIKAR RAJASTHAN 2. INDUSIND BANK LTD. GALI OPPOSITE KRISHI UPAJ MANDI, JAIPUR ROAD, DISTRICT-SIKAR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
FOR PETITIONER : MS. SUMAN BAGGA, ADVOCATE
MR. VIRENDER KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 : MR. SUDHIR MENDIRATTA, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2 : NEMO
Dated : 20 October 2023 ORDER
ORDER
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short, the State Commission), the Opposite Party No. 1 - Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (Petitioner herein) filed the present Revision Petition No. 1811 of 2017 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) in the District Forum was partly accepted and the Opposite Party No. 1 was directed to pay 75% of the insurance amount i.e. Rs. 7,48,619.50 paise alongwith Rs. 7,000/- in total on account of mental agony and cost of the Complaint. The claim against the Opposite Party No. 2 (Respondent No. 2 herein) was dismissed.
Aggrieved by this Order dated 20.05.2014 of the District Forum, the Opposite Party No. 1 filed Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 02.03.2017, upheld the Order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant.
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 do not find it relevant to reiterate the same, when the findings of both the fora are concurrent on facts.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties present and perused the record.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the claim of Respondent No. 1 / Complainant was repudiated on account of breach of Policy terms and conditions particularly with reference to limitations on use of the vehicle and the condition no. 5 which entailed the vehicle not to be left unattended without proper precautions. She further submitted that the vehicle was being used as a taxi for which there is a different premium, which is a serious violation of the Policy. In the Complaint itself, the Respondent has admitted that there were four unknown persons travelling in the vehicle and the vehicle was taken to Jaipur. Along the way, they stayed in a hotel, where the driver, on consuming food, became unconscious and the vehicle was stolen by these four persons.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant submitted that the vehicle was not being used for taxi and that the people travelling on the day of the theft were boarded by the Driver without the knowledge and consent of the Respondent No. 1. He further submitted that no separate evidence has been filed by the Insurance Company regarding the commercial use of the vehicle. He, therefore, sought dismissal of the Revision Petition.
I have gone through the submissions. No new facts or question of law have been put forth, which have not been dealt with by the State Commission or the District Forum. There are two grounds for rejection of the claim. The first one is the delay in informing the Insurance Company by 45 days, but FIR was lodged after 3 days. This is not a fundamental breach. The second one is the use of the vehicle as taxi. The District Forum has taken this violation into account and in line with the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal (IV) 2008 CPJ 01 (SC) allowed settling of the claim on non-standard basis. After careful consideration, I do not find any reason to differ from the Order of the District Forum, which is in order. I am also relying on the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4758 of 2023, decided on 31.07.2023.
In view of the concurrent findings, I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard:
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.
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"
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."
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"
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 aforesaid discussion, there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. The present Revision Petition is dismissed and the Order of the District Forum is upheld. There shall be no additional cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner as directed by the State Commission.
............................ BINOY KUMAR PRESIDING MEMBER