MRS. RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTTAversusM/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

                      [2011] 3 S.C.R. 977


                MRS. RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTIA                          A
                                 v.
          MIS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
             (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2588 OF 2011)
                        MARCH 18, 2011
                                                                   B
     [Oft I VEER BHANDARI ANO DEE PAK VERMA, JJ]

       CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986:

        s.12 read with s. 21(b) - Complaint by insured against     c
  insurer for reimbursement of damages, caused to the insured
  vehicle in an accident - District Forum .allowed the claim to a
  sum of Rs. 4 lakh .... State Commission reduced the claim to
  Rs. 2, 72, 5171- .--. National Commission;. in revision, setting
  aside the finding of the two fora and holding that the driver 0
  had no valid licence on .the relevant date .... Held: From the
  evidence on record it has been clearly estatJ/ished.that at the
  relevant time the driver had a valid driving licence - Since
  no revision was filed by the insured, against the amount
  allowed by the State Commission, compensation cannot be E
  enhanced beyond that - Though the Act does not contain any
  provision for granting interest, in order to do complete justice,
  invoking provisions of s.34 CPC, the insurer will pay interest
  @ 9% on the amount awarded by State Commission from the
  date of the claim petition till the payment is made - Code of
  Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 34 - Interest - Constitution of India, F
  1950 - Article 142 ;... Motor Vehicles Procedure Manual
_ (promulgated by Government of West Bengal).

        s.. 21(b) ~ Revisional power of National Commission - In
· the claim petition filed by insured against insurer both, the G
 ,District Forum and the State Commission, after considering
  -the evidence on record, ·recorded a finding that on the date of
   the accident, the driver of the bus was holding a valid licence
   to drive the bus - National Commission set aside the said
                                  977                              H
    978      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 3 S.C.R. ,


A finding and held that the driver had no valid licence on the
   relevant date - Held: Revisional power uls 21(b) 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 the instant case, there was no
B 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 order of
   National Commission set aside.
C      The insured-appellant filed a claim petition uls 12 of
  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that her bus
  which was insured with the respondent company was
  damaged in an accident. She claimed Rs. 5,33,782/- as
  compensation towards the repairs of the bus. The
  insurer besides resisting the claim as exorbitant,
D contended that on the day of accident the bus driver had
  no valid licence. The District Forum, after considering the
  evidence adduced by the claimant and the court witness,
  namely, the authorized officer of the R.T.O and the
  documentary evidence produced through him, held that
E the driver was holding a valid licence on the relevant date
  to drive the bus, and allowed Rs.4 lakh as compensation
  to be paid by the insurer. The State Commission upheld
  the finding but, relying on the evidence of the surveyor,
  reduced the compensation to Rs.2,72,517/-. However,
F the National Commission, in revision, held that the driver
  of the bus was not holding a valid driving licence at the
  relevant point of time, and quashed the orders of the two
  forums. Aggrieved, the insured filed the appeal.
          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
G
       HELD: 1.1. The Motor Vehicles Procedure Manual
    promulgated by the Government of West Bengal lays
    down the procedure to be followed for obtaining a
    duplicate driving licence. In the instant case, the
H
    RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTTA v. MIS. UNITED INDIA . . 979
              INSURANCE CO. LTD.
        . .                                       '       .   .
    deposition of the Court witness, namely, the authorized A
    officer of the RTA, states that the said' procedure had
    been adopted by head office at the time of issuance of
    duplicate license. In view of the admission .made by him,
    there remains no· doubt that the duplic~tr/ licence was
    issued by tile office after checking the previous B
    credentials of the driver and following the normal
    prcv· :dure by the Licensing Authority. On close scrutiny
. . of the licence bearing
                      .      No. 676/96 issu.ed
                                     '      .
                                                  by Licensing
    Authority, it is found that the noting categorically states
    that the said duplicate license was issued only after c
    "verification from the original". Even if the original
    application was not available but since the duplicate
    licence was issued by the same Licensing Authority, it
    cannot be challenged that the original licence was fake,
    forged, manufactured or engineered document. This 0
    unequivocal admission made by the witness of RTO fully
    establishes this fact. Besides, the reports ·of both the
    Surveyors have. mentioned that the driver was holding a
    driving licence bearing No. 676/96 issued by Licensing
    Authority. [para 17- 20) [985-E-H; 986-A-EJ
                                                                 E
         1.2; The cumulative effect of the facts· of the case,
    would clearly establish that at the relevant point of time
    the driver was holding a valid drivirig licence to drive the
    bus. [para 21) [986-F]
                                                                  F
       2 .1. The revisional powers of the          National
  Commission are derived from s. 21(b) of the Consumer
  Protection Act, 1986 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,           G
  may the same be set aside. In the instant case, 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
                                                                  H
                          . '
           980    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 3 S.C.R.


       A not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored
           by the courts below, but on an erroneous interpretation
           of the same set of facts. It was not a case where such a
           view could have been taken, by setting aside the
           concurrent findings of two fora. Thus, the jurisdiction
       s   conferred on the National Commission u/s 21(b) of the
.i         Act has been transgressed. [para 23] (986-H; 987·A·D]
             2.2. The Impugned order passed by National
         Commission cannot be sustained In law and, as such, is
         set aside and quashed. [para 25 and 27) (987-G; 988.C·
       C D]
              3. Against the order of State Commission, whereby
         the amount .of Rs. 2,72,517/· was awarded, no further
         revision was preferred by the appellant. Thus, In any case
       0 the compensation awarded to the appellant cannot be
         enhanced beyond what has been pegged down.:i>y the
         State Commission. [para 25) (987-G-H]            · ·
                4. Although the Act does not contain any provision
         for grant of interest, but on account of catena of cases
     · E of this Court, interest can still be awarded, taking
         recourse to s. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to
         do complete justice between the parties. This principle is
         based upon justice, equity and good conscience, which
         would certainly authorize this Court to grant interest,
       F otherwise, the very purpose of awarding compensation
         to the appellant would be defeated. Accordingly, the
         respondent is held liable to pay the amount of Rs.
         2,72,517/- to the appellant together with interest at the rate
         of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the application
       G till it is actually paid. [para 26-27] [988-A-D]
               CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
           2588 of 2011.
            From the Judgment & Order dated 18.12.2008 of the
      H National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in
   RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTIA v. MIS. UNITED INDIA                981
             INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Revision Petition No. 2899 of 2008.                                 A
    Sanjay Kumar Ghosh and Rupail s. Ghosh (for Avijit
Bhattacharjee) for the Appellant.
    P.R. Sekka (for P.N. Puri) for the Respondent.
                                                                    B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    DEEPAK VERMA, J.1. Leave granted.

    2. Insured is before us challenging the correctness, legality   C
and propriety of the order passed by National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short 'National
Commission') in Revision Petition No. 2899 of 2008 on
18.12.2008 titled Mis. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta.
                                                                    D
    3. Facts lie in narrow compass:
     Appellant is the owner of bus bearing Registration No.
WB-5716715. Appellant had taken an Insurance Policy Cover
from Respondent Insurance Company with respect to the bus,          E
for the period between 13.1.2003 to 12.1.2004 and had paid
the insurance premium for the same, acknowledging which, the
Respondent had issued the receipt in her favour. On the
intervening night of 4/5.07.2003 on National Highway No. 34
while the said Bus was proceeding to Hilli from Puri, it dashed
against a Neem tree and turned turtle. The bus was massively        F
damaged on impact and then slid into a roadside ditch. Thus,
not only the body of bus but its internal systems also suffered
extensive damage. The passengers travelling therein were also
injured.
                                                                    G
    4. F.1.R. was lodged with the local Police Station and after
investigation, the police commenced a case bearing No.226/
2003 under various sections of Indian Penal Code. In the
meanwhile, the Appellant had promptly informed the
Respondent Insurance Company about the said accident and            H
    982       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A the consequent damage caused to the bus. Accordingly, she
  then requested for assessment of loss sustained including cost
  of repairs. The Respondent duly appointed Mr. Sujit Kumar
  Sarkar as Surveyor, who submitted his preliminary report on
  21.07.2003 assessing the total loss at Rs. 2,90,000/-. Following
s the receipt of this report, the Respondent then appointed Mr.
  Surya Dutt to prepare a detailed Final Report dated 31.12.2003
  and as per his investigation, the total amount of damages was
  computed to be Rs. 2,72,517.90/-.

       5. According to Appellant, the amount assessed by both
C Surveyors was far less than the actual amount spent by her in
  getting the said bus roadworthy. According to her, she had
  spent a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- simply for getting the body of the
  bus rebuilt by Hara Gouri Technical and Engineering Works.
  Thereafter, the mechanical parts were repaired after spending
D a further sum of Rs.3,38,782/- by Bhandari Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
  Sukchar. The Appellant submitted all the bills and receipts
  showing payments and requested Respondent to pay the total
  sum of Rs. 5,33, 782/- but the Respondent failed to pay the said
  amount despite repeated demands. Respondent, in fact,
E repudiated the Appellant's Claim.
       6. Thus, the Appellant was constrained to file a complaint
  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short
  'the Act') before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
F Berhampore, Murshidabad, being Consumer Protection Cas.e
  No. 202/2005.
       7. On notice being issued to the Respondent, it filed written
  statement denying all material allegations of the Appellant. It
  submitted that Appellant has claimed exorbitant amount
G towards cost of repairing and in fact no such payments were
  made to either of the two workshops. The receipts produced
  by Appellant have been fabricated only with an intention to claim
  an unreasonably large amount from the Respondent.
H         a. Apart from the <1bcve, it also took a plea that at the time
    RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTTA v. M/S. UNITED INDIA                  983
     INSURANCE CO. LTD. [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
 of accident, the bus was being driven by a person who was not        A
 holding a valid driving licence. It further. took a plea that on
 enquiry and investigation, it ·was revealed that driving license
 bearing No. CD-676/96 was not, in fact, issued by the Licensing
 Authority, Murshidabad in favour of Sirajul Haque, the 'hen
 Driver of the Bus. Thus.the duplicate licence presente6 by           B
 Appellant was \)bViously fake and fabricated: Under the
 circumstances, Appellant was not entitied to claim any amount
 from the Responcmnt. However, it was not disputed that at the
 relevant point of time the vehicle in question was insured with
 the Respondent Company.                                              c
        9. Thus, the bone of contention before the District Forum
  was whether at the relevant point of time, Sirajul Haque, driver
  of the bus was holding a valid driving licence or not.
  Respondent placed reliance on the deposition made by an
  employee of R.T.A., Murshidabad before the Claims Tribunal D
  in Case No. 115/2004 that the driver of the said bus was not
, holding a licence and no driving licence OD-676/96 was issued
  in his favour. To controvert the said averment, Appellant had
  filed Xerox copy of the original license issued in favour of Sirajul
  Haque before that Tribunal.                                          E

      10. During the course of hearing on the suggestion being
 made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the District Forum
 issued a direction that an authorized officer of the R.T.A.,
 Murshidabad be asked to appear before the Forum with                 F
 relevant register and documents to establish whether the said
 driver of the bus in question was holding driving licence bearing
 No. OD-6713/96 or not.
      11. Pursuant to the said request the RTO appeared in this
 case and his evidence was also recorded. He deposed that in          G
 the original register it was noticed that application of Sirajul
 Haque· bearing Serial No. 676 was missing and from the
 register it was noticed that a duplicate driving licence was
 issued in favour of Sirajul Haque by the said Licensing Authority
 on 31.5.2005. Since the original application of the Sirajul          H
   984      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A Haque was not available, he had been asked to submit an
  affidavit and Xerox copy of the original driving licence, which
  he did. Only after going through the same a duplicate driving
  licence was issued in his favour. After issuance of duplicate
  license in favour of Sirajul Haque, an entry was made in the
B Miscellaneous Register maintained in this regard, after charging
  Rs. 100/- for issuance of duplicate licence from him on
  25.5.2005. All this was cat~gorically admitted by the said
  witness, Mr. Lawrence Sitling.

       12. Considering the matter from all angles the District
C Forum was pleased to allow the complaint of the Appellant and
  directed the Respondent to pay to the Appellant a total sum of
  Rs. 4,00,000/- together with an interest at the rate of 9%, if the
  payment was not made within two months from the date of the
  said order.
D
       13. This order was subject matter of challenge before the
  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West
  Bengal in an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Act. The State
  Commission also perused the matter in due detail and agreed
E with the findings that at the relevant point of time bus was being
  driven by a person holding a valid driving licence. However, it
  came to the conclusion that Appellant would be entitled to a
  sum of Rs. 2,72.517/- only, which was assessed as damages
  by the Surveyor. The amount was ordered to be paid within six
F weeks failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per
  annum till the amount is paid in full. Thus, the finding of the
  District Forum were confirmed by the State Commission except
  that the amount was reduced as mentioned above.
       14. Against the aforesaid ordets of District Forum and
G State Commission, Respondent preferred a Revision Petition
  under Section 21 (b) of the Act, before the National Consumer
  Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'National
  Commission'). National Commission after considering the
  matter came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus at the
H relevant point of time was not holding a valid driving licence.
    RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTIA v. MIS. UNITED INDIA                     985
     INSURANCE CO. LTD. [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
Accordingly, it allowed the plea of the Respondent and thereby            A
set aside and quashed the orders passed by District Forum
and State Commission. Hence this Appeal.
      15. We have heard learned Counsel Shri Sanjay Kumar
 Ghosh for Appellant and Shri P.R. Sikka for Respondent at                8
 length and perused the record.
        16. In the appeal the sole ground to be examined by us is
  whether at the relevant point of time Sirajul Haque was having
  a valid driving licence or not. We have once again critically gone
  through the evidence produced by the parties, and the C
  statements made by the authorized officer of the RTO and other
  material documents filed by the parties. In the light of the
  admission of the witness, who had appeared with the relevant
  records from the office of RTO, we have absolutely no doubt in
  our mind that at the relevant point of time Sirajul Haque was D
  having a valid driving licence. The reasoning behind our opinion
· is explained hereunder.

      17. No doubt, it is true that the original application of Sirajul
 Haque bearing No. 676/96 was missing in the Register of                  E
 Driving Licences but on the strength of other available
 documents, he was issued a duplicate licence by the same
 RTO, a fact admitted by the Court witness. After having gone
 through the copy of the duplicate licence we are further
 reassured that the same was duly issued following normal
 procedure by the Licensing Authority.
                                                                          F

        18. Apart from the above, we have also seen the
  preliminary report of Surveyor Mr. Sujit Kumar Sarkar who has
. mentioned that Sirajul Haque was having a driving licence
  bearing No. 676/96 issued by Licensing Authority, G
  Murshidabad. Similar is the report of another Surveyor Mr.
  Surya Dutt who has mentioned in the report that at the time of ·
  driving the bus, driver was having a valid driving licence. On
  close scrutiny of the Copy of the Duplicate Licence issued by
  Licensing Authority, Murshidabad we also observed a noting H
    986      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A which categorically states that the said duplicate license was
  issued only after "verification from the original."
       19. The Government of West Bengal has promulgated the
  Motor Vehicles Procedure Manual in which there is a chapter
8 that deals with the procedure to be followed for obtaining a
  duplicate driving licence. According to the stated requirements,
  under this Manual, a driver is required to submit an affidavit that
  his driving licence has been lost and has not been seized in
  any case and in case he possesses photocopy of the original
  licence then the same may also be submitted alongwith the
C prescribed application form duly filled in. After verification,
  thereof, a duplicate driving licence may be issued in favour of
  the applicant. Deposition of Mr. Lawrence Sitling states that the
  same procedure had been adopted t:y head office at the time
  of issuance of duplicate license.
D
       20. In view of the aforesaid admission made by him, there
  remains no doubt that the said duplicate licence was issued
  by the said office in his favour after checking the previous
  credentials of the driver. Even if the original application was not
E available but since the duplicate licence was issued by the
  same licensing Authority, Murshidabad, it cannot be challenged
  that the original licence was fake, forged, manufactured or
  engineered document. This unequivocal admission made by
  the said witness of RTO fully establishes this fact.
F        21. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts would
    clearly establish that at the relevant point of time driver Sirajul
    Haque was holding a valid driving licence to drive the bus.
       22. Unfortunately, all these facts have not been carefully
G dealt with by th~ National Commission and still it went on to
  upset and quash the concurrent findings of the two lower fora.
         23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the
    National Commission are derived fromSection 21(b) of the Act,
H
   RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTIA v. MIS. UNITED INDIA                  987
    INSURANCE CO. LTD. [DEEPAK VERM,A; J.]
under which th~ said power can be exercised only if there is A
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 B
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 c
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.                                  o
      24. Obviously, it goes without saying that at the time of
giving employment to Sirajul Haque, the owner of the bus must
have examined the licence issued to him and after satisfaction
thereof, he must have been given employment. Nothing more
was required to have been done by the Appellant. After all, at        E
the time of giving employment to a driver, owner is required to
be satisfied with re1:1c:1rd to correctness and genuineness of the
licence he was holding. After taking the test, if the owner is
satisfied with the driving skills of the driver then, obviously, he
may be given an appointment.                                          F
     25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned order passed by National
Commission cannot be sustained in law. It is necessary to point
out that against the order of State Commission, whereby the           G
amount of Rs. 2,72,517/-was awarded, no further Revision was
preferred by the Appellant. Thus, in any case the compensation
awarded to the Appellant cannot be enhanced beyond what has
been pegged down by the State Commission.

                                                                      H-
    988       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A      26. It is correct that the Act does not contain any provision
  for grant of interest, but on account of catena of cases of this
  Court that interest can still be awarded, taking recourse to
  Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to do complete
  justice between the parties. We accordingly do so. This
B principle is based upon justice, equity and good conscience,
  which would certainly authorize us to grant interest, otherwise,
  the very purpose of awarding compensation to the Appellant
  would be defeated. We accordingly deem it fit to award interest
  at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the
c date of filing the complaint till it is actually paid.
       27. The order of National Commission is set aside and
  quashed. We accordingly, hold that Respondent is liable to pay
  the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2, 72,517/- to the Appellant together
  with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing
D of the application till it is actually paid. Appeal thus, stands
  allowed to the aforesaid extent. Respondent to bear the cost
  of the litigation throughout.
           28. Counsels' fee Rs. 10,000/-.
E
    R.P.                                     Appeal partly allowed.