IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional Jurisdiction - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (under section 58(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) is extremely limited.

ORDER

The present Revision Petitions have been filed against the common Impugned Order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal Nos. 51 & 52 of 2019, whereby the State Commission had partly allowed the Appeals filed by Jaswant Rai Verma, the Complainant / Respondent herein, and directed the United Insurance Company, Opposite Party / Petitioner herein, to pay in each of the cases, a sum of Rs.13,52,000/- being the IDV of the vehicles alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the original Complaint before the District Forum, i.e., 23.04.2009 besides compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and harassment together with cost of Rs.35,000/- and set aside the Order dated 03.12.2018 passed in Complaint No. 572-573 of 2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the District Forum”) vide which the District Forum had dismissed the Consumer Complaints.

2. Since the question of facts and law involved in both the Revision Petitions, except minor variations, are similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 783 of 2022 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No. 572 of 2009 filed before the District Forum.

3. Succinctly put, the material facts arising out of the Revision Petition are that the Complainant purchased 6 Tippers from Telco Company on 13.03.2008 and got them insured from United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Insurance Company). The insurance was valid from 12.03.2008 till 11.03.2009. On 25.04.2008, two of the said six Trippers bearing Registration Nos. HP-12-C-0506 and HP-12-C-0509 were stolen from a place adjoining Malhotra Marble at Kiralpur (Nalagarh-Himachal Pradesh). Subsequently, a Complaint was lodged with the Police Station Nalagarh (HP) on 04.05.2008 vide Daily Station Diary No. 21(A). The Complainant informed the Insurance Company about the missing Tippers and submitted its claim on 05.05.2008. Since the claim was not settled by the Insurance Company, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint Nos. 572 and 573 of 2009 before the District Forum seeking claim of payment of Rs.13,52,000/- as the value of the vehicle and compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest and cost in each of the cases.

4. The Opposite Party Insurance Company contested the Complaint before the District Forum. It was submitted that Sh. D.S. Chadha was appointed as Investigator to assess and investigate the claim of the Complainant, who vide its Investigation Report dated 19.06.2008 recommended rejection of the claim on the ground that the claim was not maintainable since safety of the insured vehicle was not ensured and there was delay in intimating the Insurance Company which is in complete violation of Condition no 1 & 5 of the policy and clause 48(6) of the MV Act, 1988. It was submitted that relying upon the Investigator’s Report dated 19.06.2018, the Insurance Company rejected the Claim of the Complainant.

5. Upon consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum, vide Order dated 19.08.2010, allowed the Complaints and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.13,52,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- in each of the cases.

6. Both the Parties filed Appeals, i.e., FA Nos. 392 & 393 of 2010 filed by the Complainant, FA Nos. 450 & 451 of 2010, being preferred by the Insurance Company before the State Commission, the State Commission vide common Order dated 28.03.2011 upheld the Order passed by the District Forum, however, reduced the cost from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- in each case.

7. Being aggrieved by this Order, the Opposite Party Insurance Company preferred Revision Petitions, i.e., RP No. 2209-2212/201