IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission cannot interfere in petty matters.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Heard.

2. Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant had obtained House Breaking and Burglary Insurance Policy from Petitioner /Opposite Party for the period 3.2.2001 to 2.2.2002 and paid a premium of Rs.2,018/-. Cover Note No.655553 was issued but petitioner failed to issue the insurance policy. A theft took place in the respondent’s factory on 29.9.2001 and FIR was lodged with the police on 1.10.2001. The claim was also lodged with the respondent for Rs.1,42,970/-, vide letter dated 1.10.2001. Protest was lodged with the petitioner for not settling the claim vide registered letters dated 26.7.2002 and 31.7.2002. In reply to letter dated 31.7.2002, petitioner office at Delhi replied, that they had instructed their Ludhiana office to settle the claim. Inspite of that, the claim had not been settled. Respondent filed consumer complaint before District Forum, Ludhiana, praying for directions to the petitioner, to pay a sum of Rs.1,42,970/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 1.10.2001 and also Rs,5,000/- towards compensation.

3. Petitioner in its reply controverted the assertions made in the complaint. It is stated that a surveyor was appointed who in its report has observed that the theft had been committed by the servant of the complainant. Therefore, the claim was repudiated. Thus, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. District Forum, vide order dated 19.4.2004, allowed the complaint and assessed the loss at Rs.70,112/- and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.70,112/-.

5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed First Appeal No.597 of 2004, whereas respondent filed First Appeal No.633 of 2004 against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission vide common impugned order dated 9.6.2009, partly allowed the appeal filed by respondent and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.70,112/- with interest @ 7½% per annum from 4.3.2002 and also to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

6. Now, petitioner has filed this revision.

7. In the present case, theft took place on 29.9.2001. About 14 years have lapsed and litigation between the parties is going on for last above 14 years. There are concurrent findings of facts given by both the fora below against the petitioner. Even otherwise, only paltry amount of Rs.70,112 plus interest etc. is involved in this case. Hence, this Commission is not inclined to entertain this petition, in view of the decision of Apex Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC): 2013(4) CPR 378 (SC); where Apex Court observed;

“2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.”

The Apex Court further held;

“10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel