with relevant documents was presented before the Insurance Company for settlement of claim. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground of delayed intimation and violation of terms of the Insurance Policy as the Complainant had lost the vehicle due to negligence of the driver. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, Complainant filed Complaint No.53 of 2014 before the District Forum with the following prayer: -

"(26) That the complainant Prays. Following relief and cost of the claim before Hon'ble Forum:-

01. That the opposite Party be ordered to pay to the complainant the I.D.B. value of the vehicle Rs. 7,07,000/- in words seven lakh seven thousand rupees with 18% per cent yearly interest.

02. The Opposite Party be ordered to pay to the complainant compensation amount Rs. 100000/- in words one lakh rupees.

03. That Hon'ble Forum be pleased to order Cost of the dispute as well as the relief deeming fit and reasonable in favour of the complainant."

3. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party stating that Complaint was not maintainable as Complainant did not fall under the category of Consumer and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum to adjudicate the matter. It was also averred that the Complainant had violated the terms of the Insurance Policy as he had lost the vehicle due to negligence of the driver and the vehicle was being plied without permit. Since it was not a case of theft the Opposite Party was, therefore not liable for payment of claim amount.

4. The District Forum after hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, observed that delay in intimation cannot be a ground for repudiation of claim. It observed that the offender ran away with the vehicle fraudulently which amounted to theft, duly covered under the Policy. The Opposite Party committed deficiency in service by not settling the claim of the Complainant. The District Forum, vide order dated 02.05.2012, allowed the Complaint with the following order-

"The respondent is liable to pay Rs.7,07,000/- (Rupees seven lacs, seven thousand only) along with Interest @ 6% from the date of filing the complaint till Its realization;

(b) The respondent is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupee Ten thousand only) for mental agony committed by the complainant due to the said activities committed by the respondent.

(c) The respondent is liable to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as litigation charges."

2

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party filed First Appeal No.13/110 before the State Commission. After hearing the Learned Counsels for the Parties and perusing the record, the State Commission observed that the Complainant had obtained comprehensive insurance policy and under the circumstances, even matters of breach of trust were covered. The facts involved in the matter under consideration related to breach of trust, and hence the State Commission observed that the Policy covered the risk suffered by the Complainant. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Opposite Party preferred this Revision Petition with the following prayer-

"(a) to set aside the order dtd. 01.07.2013 of the CHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AT PANDRI, RAIPUR

passed in APPEAL No. FA/13/110;

b) and may pass such other or further order as this Hoh'ble Commission may deem think fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

7. Heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and have carefully gone through the record. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Parties submitted that terms and condition of the policy of Insurance are mandatory and binding on both the Parties. The Respondent has committed material violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by not intimating about the incident in time. The claim of the Respondent was not payable as it was a clear cut case of negligence on the part of Respondent as well as the representative of the Respondent and thus the Petitioner had not committed any deficiency in service and was justified in repudiating the claim.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that Mr. Kamlesh ran away with the vehicle fraudulently. There is no ground of permit and fitness as averred by the Petitioner. On the contrary, copy of permit and fitness was produced by the Complainant before the Fora below for proper adjudication. Regarding delay in intimation it was submitted by the Learned Counsel that as per the guidelines IRDA, legitimate claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of delayed intimation to the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that Respondent had obtained comprehensive Insurance Policy and after proper appreciation of material before it, the Fora below have passed just and fair order and there is no need to interfere with the same.

9. It is an admitted fact that Toyota Corolla bearing No.C.G.-04-CZ- 1555 was duly insured by the Petitioner under Policy No.191300/31/2010/8124 for the period from 24.01.2010 to 23.01.2011. On 19.05.2010 Mr. Kamlesh the said offender ran away with the vehicle. On receiving telephone call from driver on 21.05.2010, the Complainant went to Police Station Telibandha, Raipur to lodge F.I.R. but he was informed that as the vehicle was stolen /taken away by Mr. Kamlesh from Nagpur hence FIR should be lodged at Nagpur. FIR was lodged at Nagpur on 24.05.2010. Thereafter the Respondent filed claim form along with relevant

3

documents which was repudiated by the Petitioner for violation of terms & condition of the Policy and delayed intimation.

10. From the above facts and submission it observed that Petitioner filed this petition on two grounds (i) violation of terms and condition of Policy and (ii) delayed intimation regarding incident which occurred on 19.05.2010 by the Respondent.It is observed that Petitioner failed to satisfy this Commission as to which clause, term or condition of Policy was violated by the Respondent. Insurance is contract and nothing shall be presumed which is written down in the contract i.e., Policy. It not just and fair to create pseudo conditions which are not clearly laid down in the Policy by the Insurance Company. Regarding delay in intimation it is observed that the incident took place on 19.05.2010 and on 21.05.2010 the Respondent went to lodge the FIR first at Telibandha and finally at Sone Gaon, Nagpur on 24.05.2010. As admitted by the Opposite Party, they were intimated with a delay of 4-5 days which is very reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The objections taken by the Petitioner have been suitably dealt with by the State Commission and District Forum.

11. Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: -

"13.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."

12. Same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016

8 SCC 286 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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,

4

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."

13. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. The Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision jurisdiction of this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to the cost.

......................

C. VISWANATH

PRESIDING MEMBER

5