Saroj Yadav, Presiding Member

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (For short 'State Commission) in First Appeal No. 140/2020, whereby the learned State Commission upheld the order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banka (for short 'District Forum') allowing the consumer complaint being CC/09/2019 filed by the Respondent.

2. The Complainant/Respondent in his original complaint stated that he is the owner of a Hiva make truck bearing Registration No. JH-04N-3962. The said vehicle was insured with the Petitioner/ Opposite Party/The New India Assurance Company Limited under Policy No. 540704511170100001510 for the period from 24.10.2017 to 23.10.2018. It was averred that on 19.09.2018 the said vehicle met with an accident near Ratanganj Bazar while the Complainant and his conductor, Ramesh Yadav, were travelling in it. In the said accident the conductor sustained injuries and the vehicle was completely damaged. At the time of the accident the vehicle was loaded with yellow sand. The Complainant submitted a written complaint to the local Police Station at Sajore, Bhagalpur. The Complainant further submitted that the accident was intimated to the Insurance Company on the same day through his mobile phone, whereupon the insurer demanded relevant documents and registered a claim bearing No. 5407043118019999994. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to inspect the damaged vehicle and ascertain the cause and extent of loss. As per the oral directions of the Surveyor, the Complainant obtained an estimate for repair from Vikramsheela Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Bhagalpur, which assessed the repair cost at Rs.5,65,440/- and the same was submitted to the insurer.

According to the complainant, the Insurance Company stated that the claimed amount was excessive and forwarded the estimate to its Regional Office at Patna. Thereafter, another Surveyor, namely R.K. Bhagat, was appointed by the Regional Office, who instructed the showroom to carry out the repairs. Consequently, the vehicle was taken to the showroom and after completion of the repairs on 11.11.2018, a final bill of Rs.6,57,634/- was raised. The Complainant submitted the repair bills to the Surveyor and the Insurance Company which assured that the claim would be released shortly. However, despite submission of all documents, the claim amount was not paid and the vehicle remained lying at the showroom, causing financial loss to the Complainant. It was further alleged that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle through bank finance and was liable to pay a monthly instalment of Rs.62,000/-, and due to non-settlement of the claim, he was suffering a loss of about Rs.5,000/- per day. The Complainant also sent a Legal Notice dated 16.12.2019 to the Insurance Company through Registered Post, but no payment was made. It was further contended that due to the conduct of the Insurance Company the Complainant suffered financial loss amounting to Rs.11,13,634/- and also claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental and physical harassment, totalling Rs.16,13,634/-, with continuing daily loss and increasing EMI burden. Accordingly, he filed his complaint before the District Forum, Banka seeking directions to the insurance company to pay the claimed amount along with appropriate relief.

3. The Learned District Forum vide Order dated 25.06.2020, allowed the complaint and the Opposite Party was directed to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.6,57,634/- towards the repair cost of the vehicle along with interest @ of 9% per annum from 11.11.2018, i.e., the date of repair, till realization, and further Rs.25,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Opposite Party was directed to pay the total amount of Rs.6,87,634/- within two months from the date of the order, failing which the amount would carry interest @ 12% per annum until final realization. The Petitioner then filed its Appeal before the State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dismissed it, and affirmed the order of the District Forum.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that as per the Registration Certificate, the declared Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of the vehicle was 25,000 kg and the unladen weight was 11,382 kg. The vehicle allegedly met with an accident on 19.09.2018 and the Respondent lodged a claim on 26.09.2018 seeking compensation of Rs.6,22,441/-. A Surveyor was appointed who conducted a spot survey and submitted his report on 05.10.2018 after verifying the relevant documents including the Registration Certificate, Tax Token, Load Challan and Insurance Policy.

It was further submitted that after the repair of the vehicle, a re-inspection survey was conducted to examine the repairs and replacement of parts. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.3,42,330/- and called the Respondent for settlement in the presence of the repairer. After discussions, the Respondent allegedly agreed to the assessment and signed an Assessment Acceptance Note agreeing to settle the claim for Rs.3,42,330/-, subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy and the conditions mentioned in the note. Thereafter a communication dated 20.02.2019 was issued to the Respondent seeking clarification on certain issues, including the load challan submitted by the Respondent which was valid only from 14.09.2018 to 15.09.2018, whereas the accident occurred on 19.09.2018. As the reply submitted by the Respondent was found unsatisfactory, another communication dated 22.05.2019 was issued stating that the documents indicated excessive overloading beyond 12.5% of the GVW. According to the Petitioner, the said communication also gave the Respondent an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be repudiated. However, the Respondent did not furnish any reply and instead filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. Subsequently, the Petitioner repudiated the claim vide letter dated 11.06.2019 on the ground that the vehicle was overloaded beyond permissible limits. That both the District Forum and the State Commission erred in holding that there was no evidence of overloading. The record itself contained documentary evidence demonstrating overloading, including the Registration Certificate showing GVW of 25,000 kg and unladen weight of 11,382 kg, the prepaid challan produced by the Respondent indicating loading of 18,000 kg of sand, the re-inspection Survey Report and the Assessment Acceptance Note signed by the Respondent, as well as the communications and show-cause notices issued by the Petitioner. It was argued that these documents established that the total weight of the vehicle at the time of the accident was 29,382 kg, which exceeded the permissible limit by 4,382 kg, amounting to overloading of approximately 17.52%.

5. Learned Counsel for Petitioner further argued that such overloading constituted a violation of Section 113(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prohibits driving a vehicle whose laden weight exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the Registration Certificate. It was contended that despite repeated communications seeking clarification, the Respondent failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the alleged overloading or the expired challan. It was also argued that the repudiation of the claim was in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India through Circular dated 13.05.2016, which were adopted by the Petitioner through its internal Circulars dated 03.08.2016 and 31.08.2018. As per these guidelines, claims may be settled with deductions where the excess load falls within certain limits, but where overloading exceeds 12.5% of the GVW, the claim is liable to be repudiated. Since the alleged overloading in the present case was approximately 17.52%, the repudiation of the claim was fully justified and consistent with the policy terms and regulatory guidelines; That the entire claim process was conducted with due diligence and procedural fairness, including appointment of surveyors, re-inspection of the vehicle, invitation to the respondent for settlement discussions, issuance of communications seeking clarification, and finally issuance of the repudiation letter dated 11.06.2019. Therefore, the repudiation could not be treated as deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(2010) 10 SCC 567", "Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(2009) 5 SCC 599", and "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal(2004) 8 SCC 644", wherein it was held that the terms of an insurance policy must be strictly construed and courts cannot rewrite or expand the scope of coverage beyond the express terms of the contract.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondents on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He argued that the vehicle met with an accident on 19.09.2018 causing severe damage, which was immediately reported to the Police and the Insurer. Upon intimation, the Insurer appointed a Surveyor who inspected the vehicle and advised the Respondent to get the vehicle repaired and submit the bills. The Respondent got the vehicle repaired on 11.11.2018 by spending the repair cost himself and submitted all the necessary documents to the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim. Despite repeated follow-ups by the Respondent, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim and instead appointed another Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.3,42,330/-. Under financial pressure and in hope of receiving at least some amount, the Respondent signed the Assessment Acceptance Note on 20.11.2018. However, even after the acceptance, the Insurance Company did not release the payment and instead raised new objections regarding alleged overloading of the vehicle based on a "load challan". The said document was not a traffic challan nor proof of overloading and was dated 14.09.2018, whereas the accident occurred on 19.09.2018, therefore it could not establish overloading at the time of accident. The Insurer arbitrarily repudiated the claim on the alleged ground of overloading without any supporting evidence. Aggrieved by such conduct, the Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Banka which allowed the complaint and directed the Insurer to pay Rs.6,57,634/- towards repair cost along with interest @ 9% per annum from 11.11.2018 and also awarded Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. The Appeal filed by the Insurer was also dismissed by the Bihar State Commission on 23.11.2023, affirming the findings of the District Forum. It is argued that the present Revision Petition is not maintainable as the revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is limited and cannot be exercised to re-appreciate findings of fact recorded by the lower fora. Reliance is placed on judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 SCC OnLine SC 502", "Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 ", 'Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1185" and 'Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3764".

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the insured vehicle was overloaded beyond the permissible limit and therefore the repudiation of the claim was justified. However, both the District Forum as well as the State Commission has recorded concurrent findings that the Petitioner failed to produce any reliable evidence to establish that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of the accident. The mere reliance on a load challan or subsequent correspondence, in absence of any clear evidence demonstrating overloading at the relevant time, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of violation of policy conditions.

8. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is limited and can be exercised only where there is a jurisdictional error, material irregularity or manifest illegality in the impugned order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India (supra) has held that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Consumer Fora below unless there is patent perversity or illegality. In 'Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), The Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down as under:

                          "13. In our opinion, the National Commission could not have interfered with pure finding of fact arrived at by the District and State Commissions while exercising revisional jurisdiction. It is unclear as to how the National Commission perceived that the State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in. There is nothing to indicate in the decision of the National Commission as to whether there is any illegality in the approach adopted by the State Commission or that it had acted with material irregularity."

                          Further, in the same matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

                          "15. This Court had the occasion to examine the scope and ambit or jurisdiction of the National Commission while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In Sunil Kumar Maity V. State Bank of India & Ors., 7 it was held that the conditions laid down in Section 21(b) are the only parameters under which a revision may be invoked. If a document has already been considered and rejected by the State Commission, a revision does not lie merely because the National Commission has a different view on the same. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla V. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., 8 it was laid down that in cases where the courts below have reached findings on facts, the jurisdiction of revision is very limited and must be invoked only when there is a patent illegality in the findings. In Rubi Chandra (supra) it was held that even if no patent error, the revisional jurisdiction may be invoked in a case of gross miscarriage of justice."

9. In the present case, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders passed by the Fora below. The findings recorded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission are based on appreciation of evidence on record and do not warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. The order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirming the order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banka is hereby upheld. The Petitioner is directed to comply with the said order and make payment of the awarded amount to the Respondent in terms thereof, if not already complied with.

10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.