IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) No palpable mis-appreciation of the evidence by two fora.
(2) Points of law have been thoroughly discussed by State Commission in Order dt. 17.03.2021, keeping in perspective factual matrix of the case giving rise to the claim and which was wrongly denied by the Petitioner Insurance Co. to the Respondent/Complainant.

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on admission.

Perused the entire material on record.

1. This revision petition has been filed under “Section 60” of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in challenge to the Order dated 17.03.2021 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, in Appeal No. 04 of 2020 arising out of the Order dated 09.10.2019 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, UT, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 722 of 2018.

The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is provided for under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019, and not under Section 60. As such, we are treating “Section 60” printed in the petition to be a clerical mistake and are considering this petition under Section 58(1)(b).

2. The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim on the theft of a vehicle.

It is admitted that the premium was paid, the policy was valid and the theft was reported to the police.

The District Commission, vide its Order dated 09.10.2019, allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party insurance co. (the revisionist herein) to pay Rs. 7.75 lakh i.e. the IDV of the subject vehicle to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 22.05.2018 till its realisation along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury and Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation.

The State Commission re-appraised the evidence, and, for reasons recorded, dismissed the appeal of the insurance co. as being devoid of merit.

As such, this revision petition has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below.

3. The Orders of the two fora below and the other relevant material documents are part of the record. We see no use in again reproducing the facts and evidence here.

We find that both the fora below have comprehensively dealt with all relevant issues in the matter.

We do not find any palpable mis-appreciation of the evidence by the two fora below as may cause to require fresh de novo re-appreciation in revision and we also do not find any point of law left unaddressed or wrongly addressed by the two fora below.

4. The two points argued by the learned counsel for the insurance co. during the hearing on admission today, regarding infringement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and belated intimation of the theft to the insurance co., have been exhaustively dealt with by both the fora below, and they have rightly concluded that the same are not fatal to the claim in the facts of the present case.

Particularly, the points of law have been thoroughly discussed by the State Commission in its impugned Order of 17.03.2021, keeping in perspective the factual matrix of the case giving rise to the claim and which has been found to have been wrongly denied by the insurance co. to the complainant.

We do not see any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the two fora below.

5. We are conscious of the ambit and scope of this Commission while sitting in revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019 and even though the same may be exercised in a given case to set aside the order impugned but it is ordinarily done in the matters where we see some palpable miscarriage of justice or some relevant evidence having crucial bearing on the result of the lis having been ignored or some facts having been wrongly quoted or some inferences drawn in such a manner where they may be perverse or a point of law having been left unaddressed or wrongly addressed.

In the instant matter the findings that have been arrived at are based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. Therefore we see no good ground to admit this revision.

6. The revision petition is dismissed.

7. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.