Case: M/S NARENDRAN SONS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 3 MIDDLETON STREET &amp; ANR

3. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail, but the facts in short are that the present appellant sent a consignment of 800 Hercules mats at the cost of US $ 13.4 per mat and 1300 Competitor mats at the cost of US $ 9 per mat, the total order value being US $ 22420 to a consignee in United States of America (USA). However, the goods got damaged during transit. The Insurance Company appointed M/s Ewig International Marine Corporation, an authorized Surveyor and settling agent of the Insurance Company in the USA. Keeping in view the report filed and the salvage value, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarded a sum of Rs. 6,02,775/-. Both, the Insurance as well as the appellant availed the remedy of appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission returned a finding of fact that the loss suffered by the appellant amounted to Rs. 7,59,660/- while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant and dismissing the appeal of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed two revisions before the NCDRC. Such revisions were allowed and the amount of compensation reduced to Rs. 4,06,125/-.

Court's reasoning:
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the jurisdiction of NCDRC under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is akin to the revisional jurisdiction conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.5. The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it.