Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S Choki Dhani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: R.P. No. 1892/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by AVM J. Rajendra, recently emphasized that its revisional powers are limited and should only be used in cases of jurisdictional errors or significant irregularities.
Brief Facts of the Case:
M/s. Pink Pearl Laser and Amusement Private Limited held a public liability insurance policy with United India Insurance for a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs. During the policy period, a tragic incident occurred at Pink Pearl Water Park where a student died from an electric shock. The student’s mother filed a lawsuit and the District Judge awarded her Rs. 2 Lakhs with interest. This decision was later modified by the High Court, which adjusted the interest rate. Pink Pearl paid Rs. 2,45,240 to the student’s mother but experienced significant delays in getting reimbursed by the insurer. Despite multiple follow-ups, the insurer did not pay, leading Pink Pearl to file a consumer complaint with the District Forum. The complaint was dismissed, and subsequent appeals to the State Commission of Rajasthan were also dismissed. Finally, Pink Pearl filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Insurer:
The insurer argued that there was no consumer relationship between them and the petitioner. They also pointed out that the complaint was time-barred as the accident occurred long before the complaint was filed. The District Judge had found the petitioner negligent, and according to the policy terms, the insurer claimed they were not liable for compensation. 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 examined whether the cause of action arose on the date of the incident or when the District Judge determined liability. It was found that the student died on the incident date, and compensation was ordered at a later time. The suit against the insurer was dismissed, and the complaint was filed six years after the incident, leading the District Forum and State Commission to dismiss it as time-barred. Therefore, the cause of action was deemed to have arisen on the date of the incident.
The Commission reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is very limited. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Commission noted that revisional powers should only be used in cases of jurisdictional errors or material irregularities. Further references to Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. and Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. reinforced that the National Commission should not interfere with the factual findings of lower forums unless there is a clear jurisdictional or legal error.
Ultimately, the National Commission dismissed the revision petition and upheld the State Commission’s order.
Takeaway:
This judgment underscores the importance of timely filing complaints and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. Consumers should be mindful of the time limits for filing complaints to avoid dismissal on technical grounds.
