IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) National commission - The power of National Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order.
(2) Revisional jurisdiction - National Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—The present revision petition has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 08.07.2016 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 838 of 2014.

2. The brief facts of the case, as taken from the complaint filed before the District Forum, are that the respondent/ complainant – Bank provides farmer members loans and accepts deposits as per Banking laws. The Head Office of the Bank is at Dudhondi, Tal Palus, District Sangli and its jurisdiction is Sangli, Samara, Kolhapur, Solapur and Ratnagiri Districts. The petitioner/ opposite party no.1 is a company dealing in insurance policies and providing compensation in case of loss to its customers. The branch office of the petitioner is at Islampur and OP no.3/ respondent no.2 (herein) the Development Officer who promoted the insurance business. The respondent Bank obtained an insurance policy from the petitioner / opposite party no. 1 in 25.06.2011 which was renewed without break and had the agreed premium paid on time. At the time of the issuance of the policy, the customers were not aware as to how much premium was to be paid for what purpose. The insurance premium was paid to the insurance company. Respondent no.2 is the representative of the insurance company and as per the Contract Act, Insurance Company and Respondent no.3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

3. An insurance policy was obtained by the Bank from the insurance company covering risks vide policy number 151004461104000005. The Bank paid the premium for the period from 07.07.2011 to 30.06.2012 and also renewed the policy.

4. On 28.05.2012 between 11.30 to 11.45 A.M. due to short circuit a fire in the Bank. The Branch Manager, Palus Branch called the Kranti Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal and Tasgaon Nagarparishad, Tasgaon and the Branch Manager himself and the employees tried to put off the fire. The employees took out the cash and the computers from the Bank. The Fire Brigade also came and the fire was extinguished. The fire affected the meeting hall of the Bank where goods worth Rs.22 lakh were in place. The incident was immediately informed to the insurance company. The insurance company appointed a Surveyor, Shri Arun Patil for spot inspection and report who conducted spot inspection on 28.05.2012 and assessed the loss at Rs.12 lakh. Thereafter, the Bank made a claim for the compensation. The insurance company, however, rejected the claim vide letter dated 17.09.2012 on the ground that:

“The insurance policy obtained by you from our company is Banker’s Indemnity Policy and under the said policy the coverage for the damage to the above goods is not included and was not included. Hence, the administration of our company has taken a decision that your claim is not payable. Your claim is not payable. We regret for the same.”

5. The Respondent Bank, therefore, sent a legal notice to the insurance company on 27.10.2012. The insurance company replied to the notice and denied compensation on various grounds.

6. The respondent Bank thereafter filed Consumer Complaint no. 5 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (in short, ‘District Forum’) which, vide its order dated 01.08.2014, partly allowed the complaint with the following observations:—

(a) It is declared that the opponents have committed deficiency in service by rejecting the compensation claim of the complainant for the loss to its property due to fire;

(b) The opponent nos.1 and 2 are directly jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the fire compensation claim of Rs.12 lakh along with interest @ 9% per annum from 07.01.2013 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order;

(c) The opponent nos.1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- for the