IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional jurisdiction - where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails order dated 16.10.2019 of the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No. 2204 of 2011 filed against order dated 17.03.2012.

2. The State Commission has held that:—

“The appeal is hereby partly allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

The impugned order passed by the 3rd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore in CC no. 1725 of 2010 dated 24.06.2011 is hereby modified as follows:

The complaint is allowed directing

the insurance company to settle the

claim of the loan amount to the extent of Rs.10,06,842.76 with interest up to 06.03.2007 to the appellant bank within three months from the date of this

order.

Similarly, the appellant/ OP – 2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to the complainant/ respondent no.1 within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which, it shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default, till actual payment.

The complainant is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and a cost of Rs.10,000/- which has to be shared equally by the appellant/ OP no.2 and respondent no.2/ OP no.1.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Forum for the reimbursement”.

3. The petitioner is before us with the prayer to:—

(a) Set aside the final order and judgment dated 22.11.2016 passed by the learned Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. Appeal no. 2204 of 2011 titled as Bank of India vs T S Prasanna.

(b) Award costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent throughout; and / or

(c) pass such other and/ or further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. In brief, the facts are that respondent 1 had obtained a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy to cover all loanees of Home Loans from the respondent-bank by paying a subscription on their behalf. Respondent no. 2 had, jointly with his wife, availed a housing loan of Rs. 12 lakhs on 25.10.2002 from the respondent no.1. The wife of the respondent no. 2 expired in a road accident on 07.03.2007. This fact was informed on 29.05.2009 by respondent no. 2 to respondent no.1 with the request to process the same for claiming the insurance amount. The claim was acknowledged as received on 28.06.2009 by the bank and the insurance company (petitioner) on 13.07.2009. However, the petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim was inordinately delayed by over 2 years. Respondent no. 2 approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘District Forum’) in CC No. 10/1725 which allowed the complaint on 24.06.2011 and ordered as below:—

“The complaint is allowed. It is held that the 2nd opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The 2nd opposite party is directed to waive principal amount and the interest payable by the wife of the complainant, i.e., Rs.7,19,740/-. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to the complainant which was wrongly collected by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is granted 30 days’ time from this date to comply this order. If not complied by then, the said amount of Rs.2,95,000/- shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default, until actual payment.”

5. We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.

6. The lower fora have arrived at concurrent findings based on the evidence on record. No illegality or perversity is brought out in the order of the District Forum by the State Commission which has partly allowed the appeal on cost and modified the order