National Commission's Revisional Powers Limited To Jurisdictional Error Or Irregularity: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that National Commission's powers are limited to addressing issues of jurisdictional error or irregularity and cannot overturn concurrent factual findings made by the District Forum and the State Commission. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a truck, financed by Sri...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that National Commission's powers are limited to addressing issues of jurisdictional error or irregularity and cannot overturn concurrent factual findings made by the District Forum and the State Commission.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant purchased a truck, financed by Sri Ram Finance/financier, and insured with Bajaj Allianz/insurer for Rs. 12,00,000. The truck was stolen and the theft was reported to the police shortly after. The complainant notified the insurer and the financier of the theft, but they did not take action or settle the claim despite multiple reminders and a legal notice. Consequently, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint following which the complainant appealed to the State Commission of Madhya Pradesh. The State Commisison dismissed the appeal and consequently, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Insurer
The insurer argued that while they had issued an insurance policy for the vehicle, the complainant failed to report the theft or submit a completed claim form. They claimed the documents provided by the complainant were forged and asserted that the complaint was time-barred, seeking its dismissal with costs. Furthermore, the financier, acknowledged financing the vehicle but disputed the other allegations, noting that the complainant had defaulted on payments and owed a significant amount. They denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the case.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, its revisional jurisdiction is very limited. It was observed that in this case, with concurrent findings of fact, there was no illegality or irregularity in the State Commission's order that would warrant intervention. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. observed that revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) should only be exercised when the State Commission acts beyond its legal authority, fails to exercise it, or acts with material irregularity.
The National Commision dismissed the revision petition and upheld the State Commisison's order.
Case Title: Rajesh Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: R.P No. 887/2019