IMPORTANT POINT
Revision under Section 21(b) of Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on National Commission.

JUDGMENT

AVM J Rajendra AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding 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, Gujarat, Ahmedabad (“the State Commission”) order dated 17.10.2018 in Appeal No.1606 of 2013 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/OP-2 against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat (“the District Forum”) order dated 30.07.2013 partly allowing the Complaint.

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

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant partnership firm consisting of two partners, Complainant No.1 and Complainant No.2. The firm obtained a loan from State Bank of India SBI (OP-3), mortgaging property at Ward No.1, Nondh No.1/1898 Sheri, Nanpura, Surat), with SBI. Towards securing the loan against the insured property, at the expense of the Complainants the SBI obtained an insurance policy No.230300/11/03/11/00000925, valid from 28.12.2005 to 27.12.2006. however, under the policy it erroneously insured the partnership firm itself instead of the specified mortgaged property. During torrential rains and flooding in Surat on 12.08.2006, the mortgaged residential property sustained structural damage estimated at Rs.15 lakh. Upon receiving the policy from SBI and discovering the error, the Complainants filed a claim with OP-1 (the insurance company) on 11.06.2006. The insurer appointed a surveyor, Mr. Ashutosh Desai on 16.8.2006 but ultimately repudiated the claim on 07.09.2006 citing “no insurable interest” based on the surveyor’s report, since the property stated in the policy and the damaged property were different. OP-2 - SBI subsequently requested the insurer correct the address and honour the claim on 08.09.2006. But, the insurer reaffirmed the denial the same day. Aggrieved by this repudiation and alleging negligence by both OPs, the Complainants approached the learned District Forum and filed a complaint.

4. On being issued notice, in its written version, OP-1 contested the claim asserting that the policy No.230300/11/04/11/00000925 covering the period 28.12.2005 to 27.12.2006 obtained against the mortgaged loan, did not apply to the flood damage claimed by the complainant on 11.06.2007. This position was based on the report dated 03.09.2006 by appointed Surveyor Shri Asutosh Desai, who after a spot visit concluded that the damaged property at 1/1898, Chowki Street, Nanpura, Surat differed from the insured location ID 507, New Opera House, Bardoli Road, Khatodara, Surat specified in the policy. Consequently, there was no insurable interest in the affected building and the loss was inadmissible. OP-1 thus maintained that without coverage for the actual damaged property, the claim was correctly rejected. OP-2 in its reply, merely denied the Complainants’ allegations without advancing additional substantive defenses.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 30.07.2013 partly allowed the complaint and relevant portion is as under:-

“Order

(1) That the Complaint of the Complainant is hereby partly sanctioned.

(2) In this case, by exonerating the Opponent No.1 insurance Company, the order of award is passed against the Opponent No.2 Bank.

(3) The Opponent No.2 should pay Rs.15,00,000/- (in wordsRs.Fifteen Lacs only) to the Complainant No.2 with interest at 9% from the date of filing complaint till the date of making payment.

(4) The Opponents to pay Rs.2,000/- (in wordsRs.Two Thousand only) towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.1000/- (in wordsRs.One Thousand only) towards cost of the complaint to the Complainant No.2.

(5) The implementation of this order be made within 30 days.

(6) The intimation of this order be made to parties free of cost.” (Extracted from translated copy)

6. Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the Petitioner/OP-2-SBI filed