IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional Jurisdiction of NC – Concurrent findings given by Forum & State Commission : No illegality or material irregularity: NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by District Forum & SC.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (‘the State Commission’) order dated 06.03.2017 in FA No.963/2015 dismissing the Appeal filed by the OP/ Petitioners against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (‘the District Forum’) order dated 31.07.2015 allowing the Complaint.

2. As per the Registry report, there is 2 days delay in filing this case. For the reasons stated in IA/8782/2017, the delay is condoned.

3. IA Nos. 956 and 3961 of 2024 were filed by the Respondent/complainant seeking to bring on record LRs of the deceased Namdev Dnyanu Lad, who died during the subsistence of the present Revision Petition and the death certificate of the deceased was also brought on record. For the reasons stated in the said IAs, the same are allowed and amended Memo of Parties are taken on record.

4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

5. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a tractor Registration No. MH 10/AY-5081 for which he obtained insurance policy No.23162004655-85600000 valid from 25.03.2013 to 24.03.2014. On 13.06.2013 the said tractor was stolen and FIR No.92/2013 dated 28.06.2013 at PS Kundal, District Sangli, Maharashtra was lodged and intimation to the OP was also given. The Complainant filed a claim before the OP and the same was repudiated on the ground of delayed intimation to the insurance company as well as to the Police and negligence in parking the tractor. Aggrieved by the repudiation, he filed a Consumer Complaint before District Forum seeking the amount of Rs.3,01,950/- with interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.36000/- towards litigation and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment etc.

6. In their reply, the OP contended that the Complainant did not intimate about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company as well as to the police and negligent in parking the tractor. The said intimation was received by the police with a delay of 14 days and 3 days to the insurance company which is violation of condition of the policy in question.

7. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 31.07.2015 allowed the complaint and relevant portion is as under:-

“ORDER

1. Complaint application of the applicant / complainant is allowed partly.

2. Opposite parties insurance company is order and directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 257370 /- as per insurance policy number 2316 200 465585 6 000 00 together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of lodging this complaint on 25th July 2014 till the payment of entire amount. •

3. Opposite party Insurance company is Ordered and directed hereby to pay to the complainant a sum of rupees 2000 towards mental and physical torture of the complainant as well as a sum of rupees 1000 towards cost of the complaint application within the period of 30 days of receipt of this order.” (Extracted from translated copy)

8. Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the Petitioner/OP-Insurer filed Appeal No.15/963, and the learned State Commission vide order dated 06.03.2017 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:

“According to learned Advocate for Appellant Mr. P.R. Kolekar, there was a breach of policy condition by the Resp., as the immediate information of the theft was not given to the insurance company and secondly, the insured failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the insured vehicle from loss or damage, keeping it unattended without proper precaution which ultimately resulted in the loss by theft. The learned Advocate also sought to rely upon rulings which construed the word “immediate” as “at once” in respect of theft of car and it is argued that such conditions have to be read and construe