1.      This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the Order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, CB, Kota, Rajasthan (‘State Commission’). Vide this order the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 92 of 2019. In turn, this Appeal had been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota, Rajasthan (‘District Forum’) dated 15.07.2019. Vide this order, the District Forum, dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that the Complainant had got five of his buffaloes insured from the Respondent/ Insurance Company from 27.05.2014 to 26.05.2015 for coving risk of Rs.40,000/- on the death of each buffalo. The Buffalo with tag No. 23243 died on 13.03.2015 at 3.00 PM and buffalo with tag No. 53203 died on 26.05.2015 at 3.00 PM. The bodies were also examined on 14.03.2015 and 27.05.2015 respectively. The Complainant filed the claim with Respondent/Insurance Company. However, the Respondent/ Insurance Company rejected the claim on the ground that when the surveyor of the Insurance Company wanted to inspect the body of the buffalo the Complainant’s son refused the same. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The Respondent/Insurance Company in its Reply before the learned District Forum submitted that the claim of the Complainant was rightly rejected as per the report of the surveyor stating that it appears that an animal which was not insured had died and that the insured attempted to claim it as the insured animal. Attempts were also made to manipulate the animal’s characteristics to match the tag, either by removing part of the animal’s ear or by replacing the tag, making it appear unused.  Furthermore, the notification of the death of tag number 23243 was delayed, constituting a violation of the policy conditions.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.

4.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 01.10.2021 dismissed the Complaint by holding that the Complainant could not prove that the insured buffalo had died. There is no deficiency in services on the part of Insurer and hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

5.      On Appeal, the State Commission, vide the impugned order dated 01.10.2021 affirmed the District Forum order with reasons as below:

“3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the file Gone.

4.  In the case in hand, affidavits of insurance officer and two surveyors Vinod Sharma and Gajendra Chaudhary have been presented on behalf of the opposition insurance company. The statements of the tanners of the village of the complainant have been recorded. It has been written in the survey report that the skinners with whom the complainant had killed the buffaloes the leather was removed, there were no tags on his horn. When the surveyor went to the spot, the body of the buffalo was lying in the form of a skeleton. It has also been told that earlier also the complainant had claimed for the death of three buffaloes. Claims have been raised, then survey was done by Vinod Sharma Surveyor and the photo of the living buffalo of the complainant was taken. There is a difference of texture in the horn of the photo taken by Vinod Sharma and in the photo submitted by the complainant along with the claim. It has also been told that the vet of Genta dispensary did not have the authority to examine the carcass of the buffalo but still the test has been done.

It has also been told that the son of the complainant has not shown the buffalo body to the surveyor of the insurance company. The affidavit of the complainant alone has been presented on behalf of the complainant, while the affidavit of both the surveyors has also been presented on behalf of the opposite insurance company. On the basis of the statements of the tanner Smt. Shanti Bai and her son Mahavir, the affidavit of the surveyor has been submitted by the opposition, in denial, the affidavits of their sons have not been presented on behalf of the complainant.

Thus, the arguments raised by the opposite insurance company regarding the false claim and the evidence presented in this case have not been refuted by the complainant. The learned District Consumer Commission, having discussed all the facts in detail, has rightly concluded that the complainant has not proved that only the insured buffalo had died. Thus, in our opinion, there is no error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Kota. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Order

5. As a result, this appeal presented by the complainant / appellant against the opposition / respondent insurance company is dismissed and the decision dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kota in complaint case No.270/2015 is confirmed.”  (Extracted from translated copy)

6.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds which were already taken in the complaint, memo of appeal and the present Revision Petition and submitted that his claim was wrongly rejected by the Respondent relying on the report of the surveyor.  He made the claim of the insured buffalo and sought to allow the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the fora below.

7.      On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance has argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the Fora below and sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with costs.

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Parties.

9.      The learned District Forum passed a well-reasoned order dismissing the complaint and the learned State Commission dismissed the Appeal by well reasoned order primarily because he failed to prove that the OP committed any deficiency in service.

10.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission.  In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

11.    Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:-

“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. .....”

12.    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.

13.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.

14.    There shall be no order as to costs.

15.    All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.