11 June 2024 Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights   |   Insurance >> Personal Law  

A poultry farmer in Lucknow has been unsuccessful in his attempt to increase the compensation awarded for a fire insurance claim. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) dismissed his revision petition, upholding the order of the State Commission.

The farmer, identified in court documents as S.P. Singh Yadav, had taken out a fire insurance policy with an unnamed insurance company for his poultry farm, Naveen Shri Poultry (P) Ltd. A fire ripped through the farm's administrative building, causing significant damage.

Yadav filed a claim with the insurance company for Rs. 15,36,035. The company appointed a surveyor to assess the damages, who determined the loss to be Rs. 10,81,923. However, the insurance company only deposited Rs. 8,67,165 into Yadav's loan account, without informing him beforehand.

Dissatisfied with the settlement, Yadav filed a complaint with the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum partially ruled in his favor, directing the insurance company to pay an additional Rs. 2,14,758 with interest and Rs. 10,000 for mental agony.

The insurance company appealed the District Forum's order to the State Commission. The State Commission upheld the District Forum's decision on the quantum of compensation but reduced the interest rate.

Yadav then filed a revision petition with the National Commission, arguing that the actual loss was much higher, at Rs. 24,32,000. However, the National Commission dismissed his petition.

The Commission's reasoning centered on the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. This power is meant to address legal errors, not re-evaluate evidence presented in lower courts. The Commission found no illegality or material irregularity in the State Commission's order.

  Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956