1.      Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Bhawnani, Advocate for the respondent and carefully gone through the record.

2.      Above revision petition has been filed from the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattishgarh dated 07.02.2023, passed in FA/84/2022, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner/opposite party was dismissed.

3.      Rajesh Vishwakarma filed consumer complaint No.2021/154 with the District Forum for directing the opposite parties to pay (a) Rs.47 lakhs as the insurance cover for damage due to the accident during validity of the insurance policy; (b) Rs.2 lakh for mental harassment and financial damages to the complainant; and (c) 9% interest on the entire amount with litigation cost.

 4.     Rajesh Vishwakarma was running a firm in the name of Rudra Construction and Mining Equipment for his livelihood. On 31.07.2012, he purchased an excavator of Rs.47 lakhs and got it insured by the petitioner/opposite party by paying premium amount of Rs.26461/-. The petitioner issued policy No.45090344136500000165, valid from 17.12.2013 to 16.12.2014. On 10.01.2014, the machine crashed from 150 feet height and was completely damaged. The incident was immediately reported to the opposite party, who asked the complainant to lodge a police complaint at the police station. On 20.01.2014, the complainant made a written complaint with the police station and sent an email, alongwith relevant documents on 03.02.2014. The opposite party got the survey of the machine on 03.02.2014. After three months of the survey, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and he was provided the claim number. The opposite party asked the complainant to send photos of the machine, which were sent on 17.10.2014. Thereafter, the complainant sent emails dated 29.07.2021, 30.07.2021, 08.08.2021, 09.08.2021, 16.08.2021 and 19.08.2021 to settle his claim but the opposite party did not reply to the emails of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint No.2021/154 with the District Commission Raigarh.  

5.      The opposite party contested the complaint by filing the written statement stating that the financer, who was a necessary party, was not impleaded by the complainant. On receiving the intimation of accident, the opposite party got the survey done. It was found that the complainant has made a false claim after expiry of a long period, the claim was not maintainable. As the claim was not reimbursable as per Rules of the policy, the claim was repudiated.

6.      The District Commission, vide order dated 20.12.2021 allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay of Rs.47 lakh alongwith Rs.10000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost within 45 days.

7.      Aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2021, the opposite party preferred First Appeal No.2022/84 with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 07.02.2023 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Commission. Hence the present revision petition has been filed by the opposite party.

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the fact that the cause of action accrued on 10.01.2014 when the accident took place and the complaint was filed on 10.08.2021 after expiry of more than seven and half years, which was barred by limitation. The financer was a necessary party, which the complainant failed to implead. The State Commission wrongly observed that the opposite party left the claim open for 7 years. In fact, the claim was repudiated on 21.10.2014.The intimation of accident was given to the police after 10 days. Both the Fora below failed to appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and the revision petition deserves to be allowed.   

9.      Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is established and there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Fora below, which cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction by this Commission.

10.    As far as the question of non-joinder of necessary party is concerned, it is admitted that the machine was got financed by the complainant. There is inter se dispute between the complainant and the opposite party, which has no involvement of the financer. The opposite party failed to show as to how the financer was a necessary party. So far as question of limitation is concerned, the District Commission as well as the State Commission observed that the opposite party intimated the complainant vide notice dated 29.08.2021 that his claim has been repudiated. Even in the reply filed with the District Commission it is not stated that the opposite party has given intimation of rejection of claim to the complainant in 2014, therefore, the cause of action for filing consumer complaint arose on 29.08.2021. The District Commission was justified in treating the complaint to be within limitation period.

11.    The opposite party stated that the claim was repudiated according to the Rules of the insurance policy. In the reply filed with the District Commission, the opposite party has not specified any rule under which the claim was repudiated. The District Commission as well as the State Commission also observed that no insurance rule was presented by the opposite party to substantiate their plea of repudiation of claim. Even before this Commission, the petitioner has not shown any Rule under which the claim of the complainant was repudiated. The damage of the excavator due to accidentally falling from 150 feet height during insurance period was found to be proved by the Commissions below. As such the claim was payable under the insurance policy. We do not see any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed. Nor do we see any such material irregularity or element of perversity which may be said to have vitiated the verdict or resulted in miscarriage of justice. We see no reason to take a different view in the matter or to interfere in the concurrent findings. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.