Decided on February 18,2020

Vipin Singh Appellant


Deepa Sharma, J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Commission dated 06.11.2019 in his appeal no. FA/1830 of 2017 dismissing his appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 13.09.2017 by which the District Forum had dismissed his complaint no. 303 of 2014.
(2.) The learned counsel has argued that complaint was dismissed only on the ground that he could not produce any proof before the District Forum as well as State Commission whereby he had informed the insurance company about the theft of his vehicle. It is submitted that findings of the Fora below are perverse and liable to be set aside.
(3.) I have heard the arguments and perused the record. The jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21 (b) is limited. In catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that findings of the Fora below can be disturbed only when the petitioner is able to show that findings are perverse or given without any jurisdiction or in exercise of wrong jurisdiction or fora below had exceeded its jurisdiction. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and re-assess the evidences and substitute its own opinion to the facts of the case, especially when there are concurrent findings of facts. It has been so held by the Honble Supreme Court in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 11 SCC 269", which is 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".;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.