Revisional Jurisdiction Is Confined To Specific Legal Parameters: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant, M/s. Pink Pearl Laser and Amusement Private Limited had a public liability insurance policy with United India Insurance/insurer, covering a sum assured of Rs. 20 Lakhs. During the policy period, a student died from an electric shock at Pink Pearl Water Park. The student's mother filed a lawsuit seeking compensation, and the District Judge awarded her Rs. 2 Lakhs with interest. This decision was partially upheld by the High Court, which adjusted the interest rate. The complainant paid Rs. 2,45,240 to the student's mother but faced delays in reimbursement from the insurer despite multiple follow-up letters. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint with the District Forum, which dismissed the complaint. The complainant appealed to the State Commission of Rajasthan, which dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Insurer

The insurer argued that there was no consumer relationship between the petitioner and the insurer. The insurer contended that the complaint was time-barred because the accident occurred well before the complaint was filed and that the District Judge had found the petitioner negligent. According to the policy terms, the insurer claimed they were not liable for compensation due to the complainant's negligence. The insurer requested the dismissal of the complaint, asserting that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the key issue was whether the cause of action arose on the date of the incident or when the District Judge determined the liability. It was established that the student died on the incident date, and compensation was ordered later. The suit against the insurer was dismissed, and the complaint was filed six years after the incident, which led the District Forum and State Commission to dismiss it as time-barred. Thus, the cause of action arose on the date of the incident. The commission held that it is well-established that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. The commission, citing the Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., noted that revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised in cases of jurisdictional errors or material irregularities. Furthermore, in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. it was emphasized that the National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is confined to specific legal parameters and should not interfere with the factual findings of the lower forums unless there is a clear jurisdictional or legal error. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., the Court reaffirmed that the National Commission's revisional powers are restricted to ensuring that lower forums did not exceed their jurisdiction or act with material irregularity, and it should not disrupt concurrent factual findings.

The National Commission dismissed the revision petition and upheld the State Commission's order.

Case Title: M/S Choki Dhani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case Number: R.P. No. 1892/2018