Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 70
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MADHU KHANDELWAL – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1098 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. SUBODH KUMAR JHA
For the Respondents:
The National Commission's jurisdiction in revisions is limited to errors of jurisdiction, and it cannot override concurrent factual findings without substantial proof of error.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 58(1)(b) - Revision petition against State Commission's order - Insured's death deemed an accident despite allegations of suicide - Findings of the lower forums based on evidence, concluding no jurisdictional errors exist to warrant a different view - The National Commission must not exceed its jurisdiction in appellate review. (Paras 1, 5, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction - Concurrent findings of fact - National Commission's revisional powers limited to errors of jurisdiction; it cannot reassess evidence or substitute its own conclusions. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a State Commission decision that ruled a death due to railway accident rather than suicide, despite the insurer's claim based on their investigation report indicating suicide without evidence of motive.
Findings of Court:
The two lower forums based their conclusions on testimonies and evidence, and there was no indication of perverse findings requiring intervention by the National Commission.
Issues: Whether the findings of the lower forums regarding the nature of the death were appropriate and justifiable based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-evaluating evidence when the lower forums have produced concurrent findings based on appropriate reasoning.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition filed under consumer protection act. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding the cause of death and insurance coverage. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. principles governing appellate jurisdiction and concurrent findings. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. findings are not perverse and jurisdiction was not exceeded. (Para 5 , 8) |
The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”), has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”) allowing the Appeal No.446 of 2019 of the Respondent/Complainant. The said Appeal was filed by the Complainant against the order dated 23.04.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV (for short “the District Forum”) dismissing her Complaint No.893 of 2017.
2. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Fora below have reached to a wrong conclusion that the deceased/insured had not committed suicide while their investigation report clearly shows that he had committed suicide. It is further argued that the insured had not taken the bridge for crossing the railway line and by crossing the railway line he had put his life to danger and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit under the Consumer Protection Act.
3. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the insured Sh.Kailash Kumar Khandelwal, husband of the Complainant took an insurance policy and during the validity of the insurance policy, he died while crossing a railway line track as he was ran over by the train. A police report was lodged. Investigation was done by the police. The police filed its investigation report whereby it concluded that the death was due to accident on the railway track. The police had also concluded that many people used to cross the railway line from that place and for that purpose, cement walls had been raised on both sides of the railway track by the Railway but the miscreants of the area had broken the walls and people instead of using the bridge used to cross the railway line from that place. The statement of the wife of the insured/deceased was that on the date of the incident, she learnt that there was accident and two persons had died on the railway track. The statement of the Complainant as well as the report of the police concludes that the deceased had died due to accident on the railway track. The stand of the Insurance Company is that it was a suicide and for that purpose they have relied on their investigation report by investigator/surveyor who has opined that the death could be due to suicide. No facts which could put light on the motive on the part of the deceased to commit suicide were neither investigated nor placed on record.
4. It is evident that the findings of the Foras below are based on evidences on record.
5. It is settled proposition of law that this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot re-assess or re-appreciate the evidences on record and substitute the findings of the Fora below by its own conclusion on facts, moreso when there are concurrent findings on the facts. The limited jurisdiction which this Commission has is to judge whether the findings are perverse or whether the Fora below have exceeded its jurisdiction or have not acted within its jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held as under:
“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted
