Order Name: Rajesh Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: R.P No. 887/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the leadership of AVM J. Rajendra, recently clarified its limited powers. The NCDRC can only address jurisdictional errors or irregularities and cannot overturn the factual findings made by both the District Forum and the State Commission.
Case Background
In this case, the complainant, Rajesh Singh, bought a truck financed by Sri Ram Finance and insured by Bajaj Allianz for Rs. 12,00,000. After the truck was stolen, Rajesh promptly reported the theft to the police and notified both the insurer and the financier. Despite multiple reminders and a legal notice, neither party took action to settle the claim. Frustrated, Rajesh filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum, which dismissed his complaint. He then appealed to the State Commission of Madhya Pradesh, which also dismissed his appeal. As a result, Rajesh filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Insurer’s Arguments
The insurer, Bajaj Allianz, argued that while they had issued an insurance policy for the truck, Rajesh failed to report the theft or submit a completed claim form. They further alleged that the documents provided by Rajesh were forged and that the complaint was time-barred. They sought the dismissal of the case with costs. The financier acknowledged providing finance for the vehicle but disputed the other allegations, noting that Rajesh had defaulted on payments and owed a significant amount. They denied any deficiency in service and also sought dismissal of the case.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission observed that, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, its revisional jurisdiction is very limited. It noted that, in this case, there were concurrent findings of fact by the District Forum and the State Commission. The National Commission found no illegality or irregularity in the State Commission’s order that would justify its intervention. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. had previously ruled 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.
Consequently, the National Commission dismissed the revision petition and upheld the State Commission’s order.
Takeaway
This case underscores the limited revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission. It cannot overturn factual findings made by the lower forums unless there is a clear jurisdictional error or irregularity. For consumers, this highlights the importance of presenting a strong case at the District Forum and State Commission levels, as subsequent opportunities for appeal are limited.
