1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ OP under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the impugned order dated 20.02.2018, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.437/2017 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/OP against the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar (‘the District Forum’) dated 21.12.2016 wherein the District Forum allowed the Complaint.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Motor Insurance Package Policy bearing Cover Note No.9182164 dated 05.03.2013 and policy No.3379/00849861/000/00 dated 13.03.2013 for his Tata Truck No.HR-55D-4205 from the Petitioner/ OP valid from 06.03.2013 to 05.03.2014. On 08.06.2013 the said truck was stolen from Village Supura Kalan, DisttBhiwani. FIR No.97 dated 11.06.2013 was lodged in PS Behal and intimation to the OP was also given. The Complainant filed a claim before the OP and the same was repudiated on the ground of delayed intimation to the insurer vide repudiation letter dated 19.07.2013.  Aggrieved by the repudiation, he filed a Consumer Complaint before District Forum seeking insured amount of Rs.5,80,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.2 Lakh towards mental agony and harassment etc.

4.      In their reply, the OP contended that the Complainant did not intimate about the theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company immediately and also delayed in lodging the FIR.  The said intimation was received by the Insurance Company with a delay of 41 days which violation of condition of the policy in question.

5.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2016 allowed the complaint and relevant portion is as under:-

“5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6.  Undisputed facts of the present case are that the complainant insured his vehicle with the respondents for the period from 6.3.2013 to midnight on 5.3.2014. Further, this fact is not in dispute that the said vehicle was stolen within the currency of the policy in question. Further this fact is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was stolen on 8.6.2013. It is the case of complainant that on being theft of vehicle he immediately lodged the FIR No. 97 dated 11.6.2013 with the police and simultaneously he also intimated about the theft of vehicle to the respondents. The respondent company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant. Per contra, the version of the respondent company that the complainant did not lodge the claim within time; the said vehicle was stolen on 8.6.2013 whereas, intimation in this regard was given to the respondent company at a very belated stage, so respondent company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Theft of vehicle on 8.6.2013 is proved on file from the lodging of FIR. There is delay in giving intimation to the respondent company.

7.        So, keeping in view this fact, claim of the complainant is accepted to the extent of 75%.

8.        In the result, this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to respondents to pay 75% of Rs.5,80,000/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle to the Complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 23.1.2015 till its payment. This order be complied with by the respondents within 30 days, from the date of passing of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

6.      Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Forum, the Petitioner/OP – Insurer filed Appeal No.437/2017, and the learned State Commission vide order dated 20.02.2018 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:

“3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that (i) the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the insurance policy was purchased from the office of Insurance Company at Karnal and (ii) there was delay of 03 days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and 41 days in informing the Insurance Company.

4. Regarding the territorial jurisdiction, in the insurance policy (Exhibit C-1), Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited-opposite party No.3 (for short, 'Finance Company'), that is, sister concern of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, was the intermediary between the Insurance Company. The vehicle was got financed by the Finance Company at Hisar. Thus, the cause of action arose at Hisar. The District Forum, Hisar had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore the contention raised is rejected.

5. The next submission is that there was delay of 03 days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and 41 days in informing the Insurance Company. It was specifically stated by the complainant in paragraph no.4 of the complaint that the complainant immediately informed the Finance Company. In reply thereto, the Insurance Company did not rebut. So, the plea raised is without merit and is repelled.

6.        Coming now to the submission raised that the Insurance Company was informed after 41 days. The Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that there was a delay of 41 days in giving intimation to it. Apart from this, the District Forum has awarded the compensation on non standard basis and the complainant has not filed any appeal before this Commission. This plea also carries no weight.

7.        For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed.”

7.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner/OP filed the instant Revision Petition bearing No.1548 of 2018.

8.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP argued that there was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the Complainant. The policy explicitly states that the Claim for theft of the vehicle is not payable if theft is not reported to the police and Insurer within a reasonable time of the theft occurred on 08.06.2013. However, the Petitioner/OP was informed about the incident with the delay of 41 days. As a result, repudiation of the claim by Petitioner/OP is justified. He sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Fora below.

9.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant has argued in favour of concurrent findings of the impugned orders passed by the Fora below.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs and relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 2020 (11) SCC 612;

(ii) Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Ins. and Anr., Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017 decided on 04.10.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

(iii) Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 527.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

11.    The main issue arises in the matter is the delay in intimation to the police and insurance company. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 2020 (11) SCC 612, the delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft of vehicle in question is no more a critical issue.

12.    The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after hearing both parties, determined that the District Forum's order required no intervention. It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. On due consideration of the entire matter, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting any interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. I also place reliance upon the ratio in ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

13.    Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed:-

“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, 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 discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld.

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.