Revision petition no. 1602 of 2012

REVISION PETITION NO.  1602 OF  2012

1. Amal Sai S/o Late Birjhu 

2. Smt. Pancho W/o Late Birjhu Both R/o Village Basen, Post Jigdi, P.S.& Tehsil Rajpur Distt. Balrampur (C.G.)

                                             ... Petitioner

 Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Brahma Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, C.G.

2. Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank Through Branch Manager, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Through Branch Manager, Branch Pasta, PS. & Tehsil Rajpur, Dist. Balrampur (C.G.)

                            ... Respondents

  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

  HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

 For the Petitioner               :  Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate

Pronounced on :  2^nd November, 2012

ORDER

1.      Shri Amal Sai and Smt. Pancho are the owners of a tractor with trolly attached.  They had taken loan from Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, opposite party No. 2.  The above said tractor was insured by United India Insurance Company Limited, opposite party No. 1.  The said tractor met with an accident on 26.3.2009 and it was damaged considerably.  The complainants claimed damages from the opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 refused to pay the claim on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by opposite party No. 1.

2.      The complainants filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service by respondents.  The complaint was dismissed.  The complainants filed an appeal through registered post to the State Commission, Raipur.  They were under the impression that the learned State Commission would send a notice for hearing in their favour.  However, no such notice was received.

3.      Through this revision petition, they have challenged the order passed by the State Commission dated 3.2.2012. 

4.      None appears on behalf of the petitioners.  However, the Commission received a letter on behalf of the petitioners stating that they were not in a position to appear before this Commission and prayed for engagement of an advocate on their behalf.  Consequently, Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae.  Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that she has sent a letter to the petitioners but she did not receive any response.  She argued that she is not assisted by her client.  She stated that she even does not have the policy.

5.      We have gone through the record.  It is apparent that at the time of the accident, its driver did not have the effective and valid driving licence.  He was having driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle only.  Consequently, the claim filed by the complainants found no favour even with the District Forum or with the State Commission.  The order of the State Commission clearly goes to reveal that it had sent the SPC for the date of hearing but none appeared on behalf of the petitioners.    The State Commission did not find any substance in the appeal  and dismissed the same. 

6.      The District Forum in its paras 18 and 19 as per English version mentioned as follows. 

“18. In the documents exh. A-7, A-8 and A-9 filed on behalf of complainant, it has been mentioned that at the time of accident, vehicle Tractor No. CG 15 A/4137 and Trolley No. CG 15 A/4138 was not being driven by Rajesh Dass, it was being driven by Ramdass.  Rajesh was sitting in the trolley of vehicle, however in the document exh. D-5 (1) filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, Rajesh Panka was driving the vehicle on 26.3.2009 at the time of accident, who expired in this accident.  Complainants did not make any objection immediately after the accident that Rajesh Panika was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and after a long period, in an after-thought manner, to get the benefit of insurance, it has been shown that the vehicle in question was being driven by Ram Dass and sent the Exh. A-7, A-8 to Inspector General of Police, Sarguja Range on 5.10.2009 to Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur on 12.5.2009.  In these circumstances, it is not found reliable that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by Ram Dass.  Complainants has not produced the driving license of Rajesh Panika, vehicle driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident as mentioned in the Exh. D-5.

7.      No evidence was produced to rebut these findings.

…………Sd/-…………….

                                                         …………Sd/-……………

Naresh/reserved           

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 3749 OF 2012

[Against the order dated 07.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 1094 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur]

Babitaa Wadhwani D/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Das Wadhwani 31/62/6,  Varun Path, Mansarovar Jaipur, Rajasthan

Versus

…      Respondent

  

Before :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner                    :  Petitioner-in-person

1.       Dissatisfied with the award of Rs.15,000/- and in addition a cost of Rs.4000/- ordered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (District Forum for short), which was subsequently confirmed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (State Commission for short) on the complainant’s appeal; the complainant has filed this revision petition seeking enhancement of the award/compensation to Rs.3,60,000/- and in addition another Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- for legal expenses.

3.       We have gone through the records of the case and have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in person.  Suffice it to say that the District Forum vide its detailed order has analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case and considered her contentions.  In our view, the petitioner/complainant is seeking compensation only on hypothetical grounds, inasmuch as she claims that she would have got a job which would have ensured her a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. This is too remote a claim, for which compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be allowed.  Thus, we do not find any merit on her submissions. Besides, this being a case of concurrent finding, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Fora below in exercise of our limited jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act.

4.       The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

 

Sd/-

 

Sd/-

Mukesh   

  

REVISION PETITION NO. 2795 OF 2012

[Against the order dated 01.06.2012 in F.A. No. 32 of 2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh]

Japji Kaur Cheema D/o Shri H.S. Cheema R/o H.No. 1126, Sector 8-C Chandigarh

  Versus

1. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. SCO 129-130, Sector-9 Chandigarh

 2.  ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. ICICI Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla

Complex Mumbai 

3.  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ICICI Pru Life Tower

1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg Prabhadevi, Mumbai Old Address:

4^th Floor, Stanrose House Appa Saheb Marathe Marg Prabhadevi, Mumbai

                                  …      Respondents

 BEFORE :           

For the Petitioner                       :  Mr. Vishal Ahuja, Advocate

 

Pronounced on 5^th November, 2012

 

O R D E R

 

PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

1.     This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1^st of June, 2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) passed in First Appeal No. 32 of 2012.  By the said order the State Commission has set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for short the District Forum) passed in favour of the petitioner/complainant, thereby dismissing her complaint.

3.     When the entire loan amount was foreclosed after about a period of 8 months from the date of disbursement of the loan amount, the petitioner/complainant sought the refund of the amount of premium paid by her.  Respondent no.3/ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., however, refunded only a sum of Rs.1,49,605.09 against Rs.2,48,253/- (appears to have been wrongly calculated since Rs.2,68,000 – Rs.19,474 comes to Rs.2,48,526/-) as per clause 3(b)(ii) of the policy, which prescribed the formula for the refund of the surrender value.  As against the course adopted by respondent no.3/Insurance Company, the say of the petitioner/complainant is that since she had foreclosed the loan within a period of 8 months from the date of its disbursement as against the period of 20 years for which the insurance was valid, respondent no.3/Insurance Company was entitled to deduct proportionate premium for the said period which came to only Rs.8275/- and therefore the deduction of Rs.98,647.91 was not justified.

4.     The District Forum was convinced with this line of argument of the petitioner/complainant and had directed respondent no.3/Insurance Company to refund the amount of Rs.90,372.91, which they had deducted, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs.  The said order of the District Forum was challenged in appeal by respondent no.3/Insurance Company before the State Commission, which going by clause 3(b)(ii) of the policy relied upon by the Insurance Company set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.  This has given rise to the complainant approaching this Commission to invoke our supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.     We have heard Mr. Vishal Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and have perused the records of the case.  The foreclosure of the loan obtained by the petitioner/complainant from respondents no.1 & 2/ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. by paying the foreclosure charges is not in dispute. The only allegation of the petitioner/complainant is against respondent no.3/ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. on the point of refund of surrender value of the insurance premium.  Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that since the petitioner had availed the insurance cover only for a period of 8 months, where-after she had discharged the entire loan amount and surrendered the policy, the Insurance Company should have refunded the premium amount after deducting only the proportionate amount of premium, which comes to Rs.8275/- and not the heavy amount of Rs.98,647.91, which is a clear deficiency in service on their part.

6.     We have noted the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant only to be rejected for the simple reason that the terms incorporated in the policy are agreement between the parties for all intents and purposes and the parties are bound by them.  Subsequent to entering into such agreement, none of the parties can go behind the terms of such agreement or allege that the conditions were not fair.  The State Commission has dealt with this aspect in detail and has stated as under :-

“11.    …… The parties were governed by the terms and conditions contained in this policy document.  Clause 3(b)(ii) of this policy document reads as under :-

‘In case of the full prepayment of the loan or restructuring of the loan resulting in full prepayment or transfer of the Loan to another Financial Institution/Company/Bank, which is not a subsidiary or branch of the Bank, the Life cover shall cease and the Surrender Value shall become payable as long as the same is at least Rs.250/-.  The Surrender Value is computed as below :-

 

70% of the Premium Paid * outstanding terms of Life Cover

 

12.     The authenticity of this document, was not at all challenged, by the complainant, during the pendency of the complaint.  …”

7.     Contentions now raised seek to challenge this clause of the policy, which is not permissible in law.  We, therefore, find that the State Commission has correctly set right the erroneous view adopted by the District Forum.  The order of the State Commission being in conformity with the settled principle and law on the terms of the contract being binding on the parties needs no interference.

                                                             Sd/-

 
  Sd/-

Mukesh

[Against the order dated 06.06.2012 in F.A. No. 157/2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula]

Bhupinder Singh S/o Shri Dariya Singh R/o Village Hoshiarpura Tehsil Safidon, District Jind Haryana

Versus

1.  M/s Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass Through its Proprietor Dayanand HUF Through its Karta Dayanand S/o Rameshwar Dass R/o Old Anaj Mandi, Jind Haryana  

2.  Dayanand S/o Shri Rameshwar Dass Proprietor Dayanand HUF Through its Karta Dayanand S/o Shri Rameshwar Dass R/o Old Anaj Mandi, Jind Haryana

 3.  Dayanand S/o Shri Rameshwar Dass Partner M/s Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass R/o Old Anaj Mandi, Jind Haryana

…      Respondents

 

BEFORE :

 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioners      :  Mr. Gautam Godara Advocate

1.     This revision petition has been filed by the original complainant Bhupinder Singh against the concurrent findings and orders dismissing his complaint firstly by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short the District Forum) in Complaint No. 123 of 2004 on 15^th of December, 2009 and subsequently on his appeal by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 157 of 2010 on the 6^th of June, 2012.

3.     Aggrieved thereupon the petitioner/complainant filed appeal before the State Commission which too has been dismissed. 

4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that both the fora below have ignored the report of the laboratory test undertaken by the renowned Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research, which was very material, and have erroneously discarded the report on the ground of sample not being in sealed condition.  On the observation of the fora below that the petitioner/complainant absented himself at the time of the inspection of the field by the Deputy Director (Agriculture), learned counsel submits that the petitioner/complainant was not informed about the date and time of the visit.

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and have carefully perused the records of the case.  Firstly, we observe that it is a case of concurrent findings and orders of the two fora below and our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is rather limited, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court 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 the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora” .

6.     Besides, it is from the records that the sample for laboratory test was referred to Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research by the petitioner/complainant himself and, therefore, it cannot be said that this will have the same effect as a reference made by a consumer fora under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Obviously, it was not in a sealed packet and the content thereof which was subjected to the test could not be said with authenticity to be the same weedicide which the complainant had purchased from the respondent/opposite party.

8.     The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.  

 

Sd/-

Mukesh