IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Review – 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) Error – It is evident that the orders of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. The revision petitioner has not been able to establish any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the orders of the lower fora.
(3) Findings – Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered.

ORDER

This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 29.12.2016 by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no.1665 of 2015 which was disposed of in FA no.1676 of 2014 (counter appeal) filed by the present respondent upholding the order dated 18.11.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar in CC no. 95 of 2012.

2. In brief, the relevant facts are that the petitioner provided a cash credit limit of Rs.2.00 lakh which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.7.00 lakh to the respondent who was running a proprietorship concern, M/s Kumar Trading Company. An insurance cover was issued by respondent no.2 for a sum of Rs.10 lakh for a premium which was debited from the account of respondent no.1 by the petitioner. The policy was taken on 05.05.2010 and was valid for the period 06.05.2010 to 05.05.2011. On the intervening night of 20/21.10.2010 there was a theft in the shop of the respondent and costly mobile phones, accessories, sim cards etc., in which the respondent dealt, were found missing. FIR no.157 dated 29.10.2010 was lodged in the Police Station division No.1, Jalandhar and respondent no.2 was informed who deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. The claim of respondent no.1 for a sum of Rs.10 lakh was repudiated by respondent no.2 on the ground that the insurance cover extended only to “all kinds of stationery goods, gifts items and such other items pertaining to the insured trade stored at the above shop” whereas at the time of the theft the complainant was engaged in the business to sell, repair and recharge of mobile hand sets and the subject matter under the policy was different to the loss that has been reported. After obtaining surveyor’s report under RTI, respondent no.1 issued a legal notice to respondent no.2 and after failing to receive a reply, approached the District Forum which ordered in his favour and directed payment of Rs.10 lakh with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till payment along with Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

3. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the State Commission which held that respondent/complainant was a consumer qua the petitioner and the insurance company and that the insurance cover was taken by the present petitioner and therefore, any deficiency in service constituted a deficiency qua the respondent no.1. In view of the fact that the insurance services were availed not for commercial purpose but because insurance was for indemnification for future loss and the insurance policy was not taken for making profit, it was held that the insurance cover “on stock of all kinds of stationery goods, Photostat machine, STD phone, mobile phone and such other goods pertaining to insured’s trade whilst lying stored at above address”. The order noted that the renewal of the policy in 2009-2010 had enhanced the coverage to Rs.16 lakh but was subsequently reduced to Rs.10 lakh and its coverage was for all kinds of stationery goods/ gift items and all such items. The State Commission concluded that the actual loss amounting to Rs.13,45,500/- and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in reducing the amount of insurance and not covering the mobile set and accessories for which reasons it found no reason to differ with the findings of the District Forum.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

5. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the orders of the lower fora were flawed since coverage of the policy pertaining only to the stationery goods and gift times and not for mobile hand set, accessories etc. It was therefore, argued that the orders of the lower fora were erroneous and that the revision petition be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that this Commission on 04.01.2016 in RP no.2524 of 2015 d