PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.05.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 329 of 2013 – Vijay Somany Vs. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner got insured his Scoda Activa DL-9CG09923 from OP/respondent for a period of one year from 9.10.2010 to 8.10.2011. On 25.11.2010, vehicle met with an accident and damage was caused. Complainant submitted claim before OP, but OP repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum., OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant suppressed material fact at the time of obtaining policy and availed no claim bonus deduction, though, he was aware that he had received bonus from earlier insurer Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any declaration by petitioner, learned District Forum dismissed complaint on the basis of obtaining no claim bonus fraudulently and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record reveals that complainant obtained policy from OP in which OP’s agent allowed Rs.3,226/- as no claim bonus and complainant paid amount as demanded by agent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no false declaration regarding non-receipt of earlier claim was made by petitioner and proposal-cum-cover note does not contain signatures of the petitioner; even then, District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint. Perusal of proposal-cum-cover note reveals that it does not bear signatures of the complainant on declaration and in absence of any signatures on the declaration, it cannot be inferred that complainant has given any false declaration regarding non-receipt of claim from earlier insurer. Merely because no claim bonus of 25% amount has been allowed by the agent of respondent from payable premium, it cannot be inferred that no claim bonus amount was deducted on the declaration of petitioner because learned Counsel for the respondent could not place any document to substantiate this argument that petitioner declared before the concerned agent that he has not received any claim from the earlier insurer. Respondent has not placed affidavit of concerned agent who filled proposal-cum-cover note to prove that petitioner declared before the concerned agent that he has not received claim from earlier insurer. Merely because petitioner has changed insurance company, it cannot be inferred that he changed insurance company for the purpose of playing fraud on respondent. Learned District Forum wrongly mentioned in its order that in absence of reason for changing insurance company, it may be inferred that it was for availing benefit of no claim bonus. 6. Learned State Commission in its impugned order have reproduced GR 27 regarding no claim bonus. Perusal of this proviso makes it clear no claim bonus was to be allowed only after finding no claim bonus entitlement from previous insurer. It has further been mentioned in GR 27 that where the insured is unable to produce evidence of no claim bonus entitlement from the previous insurer, no claim bonus may be permitted only after obtaining declaration from the insured. Respondent has not placed on record any such declaration obtained from the petitioner while granting no claim bonus. 7. Learned State Commission has further wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that declaration given by the complainant proved false because he did not find any such declaration on record. Learned State Commission has placed reliance on many judgments and I agree with the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, but they do not help to the respondent in the absence of false declaration by the petitioner which is not placed on record by the respondent and in such circumstances, impugned order and order of District Forum are liable to set aside. 8. Learned proxy Counsel for the respondent submitted that no revision petition is maintainable against the concurrent findings of Fora below. She placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011 – Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. In paragraph 23 of the judgment it has clearly been mentioned that revisional powers can be exercised if there is prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. As discussed above, there is prima facie error in the order of District forum as well as State Commission holding that petitioner gave false declaration regarding entitlement for no claim bonus and in such circumstances, this judgment does not help to the r espondent. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 23.05.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in Appeal No. 329 of 2013 – Vijay Somany Vs. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and order of District Forum dated 13.3.2013 passed in CC No. 356/2011 - Vijay Somany Vs. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and complaint is partly allowed and respondent is directed to process claim within 30 days and make payment accordingly with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filling complaint till payment. | 
