Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta —Appellant
versus
M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.19246 of 2009]
Decided on 8.3.2011
IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in impugned order.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act , 1986—Section 23—Insurance—Damage to Bus in accident— Complaint dismissed by National Commission in appeal—District Forum directed Respondent to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- with 9% interest which was reduced to Rs. 2,72,517 by State Commission—At relevant point of time driver was holding valid driving licence—All these facts have not been carefully dealt with by National Commission and still it went on to quash concurrent findings of lower Fora—Order of National commission set aside—Award made by State Commission restored. (Paras 12 to 14, 21, 22, 25 and 27)
(B) Consumer Protection Act , 1986—Section 21(b)—Revision—Scope and ambit—There was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted National Commission to have taken a different view— Revisional power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in impugned order—Decision of National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by Courts below, but on a different and erroneous interpretation of same set of facts—This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked—Jurisdiction conferred on National Commission has been transgressed. (Para 23)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 34—Consumer Protection Act , 1986—Section 12—Interest—Consumer Protection Act does not contain any provision for grant of interest, but interest can still be awarded, taking recourse to Section 34 of CPC, to do complete justice between parties—This principle is based upon justice, equity and good conscience which authorize Court to grant interest, otherwise, very purpose of awarding compensation to appellant would be defeated. (Para 26)
Deepak Verma, J.—Leave granted.
2. Insured is before us challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short ‘National Commission’) in Revision Petition No. 2899 of 2008 on 18.12.2008 titled M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta. C.A. @ SLP(C)No.19246 of 2009 .
3. Facts lie in narrow compass: Appellant is the owner of bus bearing Registration No. WB-57/6715. Appellant had taken an Insurance Policy Cover from Respondent Insurance Company with respect to the bus, for the period between 13.1.2003 to 12.1.2004 and had paid the insurance premium for the same, acknowledging which, the Respondent had issued the receipt in her favour. On the intervening night of 4/5.07.2003 on National Highway No. 34 while the said Bus was proceeding to Hilli from Puri, it dashed against a Neem tree and turned turtle. The bus was massively damaged on impact and then slid into a roadside ditch. Thus, not only the body of bus but its internal systems also suffered extensive damage. The passengers traveling therein were also injured.
4. F.I.R. was lodged with the local Police Station and after investigation, the police commenced a case bearing No.226/2003 under various sections of Indian Penal Code. In the meanwhile, the Appellant had promptly informed the Respondent Insurance Company about the said accident and the consequent damage caused to the bus. Accordingly, she then requested for assessment of loss sustained including cost of repairs. The Respondent duly appointed Mr. Sujit Kumar Sarkar as Surveyor, who submitted his preliminary report on 21.07.2003 assessing the total loss at Rs. 2,90,000/-. Following the receipt of this report, the Respondent then appointed Mr. Surya Dutt to prepare a detailed Final Report dated 31.12.2003 and as per his investigation, the total amount of damages was computed to be Rs. 2,72,517.90/-.
5. According to Appellant, the amount assessed by both Surveyors was far less than the actual amount spent by her in getting the said bus roadworthy. According to her, she had spent a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- simply for getting the body of the bus rebuilt by Hara Gouri Technical and Engineering Works. Thereafter, the mechanical parts were repairedvafter spending a further sum of Rs.3,38,782/- by Bhandari Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sukchar. The Appellant submitted all the bills and receipts showing payments and requested Respondent to pay the total sum of Rs. 5,33,782/- but the Respondent failed to pay the said amount despite repeated demands. Respondent, in fact, repudiated the Appellant’s Claim.
6. Thus, the Appellant was constrained to file a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Berhampore, Murshidabad, being Consumer Protection Case No. 202/2005.
7. On notice being issued to the Respondent, it filed written statement denying all material allegations of the Appellant. It submitted that Appellant has claimed exorbitant amount towards cost of repairing and in fact no such payments were made to either of the two workshops. The receipts produced by Appellant have been fabricated only with anvintention to claim an unreasonably large amount from the Respondent.
8. Apart from the above, it also took a plea that at the time of accident, the bus was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence. It further took a plea that on enquiry and investigation, it was revealed that driving license bearing No. CD-676/96 was not, in fact, issued by the Licensing Authority, Murshidabad in favour of Sirajul Haque, the then Driver of the Bus. Thus,the duplicate licence presented byAppellant was obviously fake and fabricated. Under the circumstances, Appellant was not entitled to claim any amount from the Respondent. However, it was not disputed that at the relevant point of time the vehicle in question was insured with the Resp
