1.  The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 03.06.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 340 of 2015 in which order dated 11.02.2015 of Second Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 809 of 2009 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 03.06.2016 of State Commission and order dated 11.02.2015 of the District Forum.

2.      While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as ‘OP’ was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as ‘Complainant’) was Respondent in the said FA No. 340 of 2016 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC no.  809 of 2009.

3.      Notice was issued to the Respondent on 25.10.2016. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 21.08.2023.  Delay of 19 days in filing the RP was condoned after considering the reasons stated in condonation of delay application.  

4.      Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant firm is a pulse manufacturer which supplies goods to various places. The complainant obtained Marine Open Policy from OP for protection of goods  from damages during transit.  The complainant firm on 14.08.2008 sent the goods through truck in safe manner from Jaipur to Ranchi and Hazaribagh but due to heavy rain, the said goods got damaged due to soaking by rain water.  The said fact came to know on 25.08.2008 when the said truck reached Hazaribagh.  The owner of consignee firm at Hazaribagh informed the Branch Manager of the OP on 25.08.2008 but no action was taken by him regarding survey of consignment.  The purchaser got the survey done through authorized surveyor Sh. Daljeet Singh, who submitted his report on 30.08.2008 and  assessed the loss at Rs.3,31,332/-. The Complainant firm lodged the claim with the OP but the claim was not settled despite submitting the claim form with necessary documents.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum.  The District Forum vide order dated 03.06.2016 allowed the Complaint.  Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the OP appealed in State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 03.06.2016 in FA No. 340 of 2015 dismissed the Appeal of the OP.  Hence the OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.      Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 03.06.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The Fora below have arbitrarily accepted the report of surveyor of the respondent which was made in disregard to the provision of Section 64 UB of Insurance Act.

2. Assessment made by Insurance Company is more authentic in view of the fact that it is joint survey report having signature of consignee at Ranchi and respondent has not led any evidence to prove that signature was obtained by exercising coercion or by illegal means.

3. The survey report of the respondent lacks evidentiary value as affidavit of the surveyor Sh. Daljit Singh has not been filed by the respondent. 

4. Surveyor of the respondent while assessing the loss has illegally added freight charges which while assessing the loss.

5. Complainant has loaded the goods in one truck and admittedly the goods in the form of bags are not having any demarcation to the effect that such bags are to be delivered at Hazaribagh and rest at Ranchi.  The whole consignment is in one lot of which 140 bags were to be delivered at Hazaribagh and consignee has got consignment in good condition as proved by the OP by filing affidavit of its surveyor.  When the consignee at Hazaribagh has received the consignment in good condition, then naturally he has not cooperated with the surveyor. 

6. The Fora below have erroneously held that the survey report of OP cannot be relied  upon as same was submitted belatedly.

7. The respondent has not given immediate intimation to the OP regarding the loss in terms of clause 8 of the policy condition.  Shri Damodar Das, consignee at Hazaribagh has not filed his affidavit to corroborate his statement that he has informed to the office of OP.  No evidence was filed regarding the same. 

8. The OP rightly closed the claim file as the complainant did not submit the required documents inspite of repeated letters and reminders.

6.      Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1. Counsel for the Petitioner repeated the points which are stated in para 5, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here.

7.      Heard both sides.

8.      In this case the goods were perishable, in transit from Jaipur to Hazaribagh and Ranchi and got damage due to rains. The Respondent contends that they gave the intimation of loss to the insurance company on the same date that is 25.08.2023 itself but the insurance company took time in appointing the surveyor. The Respondent further contends that on account of delay on the part of insurance company to appoint a surveyor, they got the loss assessed by their own surveyor, who is also an IRDA Registered surveyor and who has given a report of loss assessment of Rs. 3.31 lakh. The insurance company appointed surveyor did the inspection on 27.12.2008 that is after about four months and inspected only the consignments of Hazari Bagh. He did not inspect the loss of 320 bags consignment which was for Ranchi. It is mentioned in the surveyor report that Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jain i.e. the consignee of the goods, produced 40 bags of chola mogar for inspection out of which 5 bags were completely/ totally damaged, and remaining 35 bags were partially damaged. According to the surveyor, the damages expected therein 35 bags averaging 4.5 kg per bag. Hence, Surveyor concluded that they suffer the loss of 412 kg only the partially damage/ affected 142 bags out of the  remaining 280 bags. Prior to the visit of surveyor, they have sold  280 bags less 400 kg goods. Here it is also to be noted the so called joint inspection report claimed by the Petitioner is not a joint report with the Respondent or his representative but joint report with the consignee of the Respondent who was not authorized as his representative  for this purpose. The Petitioner contended that the surveyor Mr. Daljeet Singh was actually appointed by the consignee and not by the Respondent consigner. To this the Respondent states that it was done by the consignee in consultation with the insured. The Counsel for the Petitioner states that the intimation to them was given late which is evident form their letter dated 09.09.2009.

9.      We  have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  The District Forum after appreciation of the evidences placed before it and considering all the relevant records and rival contentions of the parties have given a well-reasoned order which has been rightly upheld by the State Commission.  In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below in favour of the respondent herein and against the petitioner – Insurance Company.

10.    As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held 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.”

11.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8^th  September, 2022, held that:-

“13. 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.

14. 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 the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

12.    We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence, the same is upheld.    Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.

13.    The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.