ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, the “NCDRC”) in First Appeal No.2428 of 2017 and order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in (for short, the “SCDRC”) in Complaint Case No.09 of 2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a Public Sector General Insurance company, which is involved in the insurance sector and offers a wide range of insurance products and services to the customers and is administered by the Ministry of Finance. The respondent no.1 has availed the insurance policy being Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy bearing No.230400/46/07/45/00000038 with a validity from 09.05.2007 to 08.05.2008 for the sum of Rs.20 lacs. The said policy is duly produced at Annexure-C to the present petition. The respondent no.2, with one Shri Pankajbhai Chandrakant Jhaveri, who happens to be the partner of respondent no.1 and nephew Riddheshbhai Jhaveri were travelling to Vadodara, carrying Acer company laptop and 71 pieces of diamond studded ornaments of the respondents. At about 12:15 hrs., they reached near Nana Varaccha and stopped the car for filling up gas from the CNG gas station and due to security reasons, everyone was asked to step out of the vehicle while filling the gas. At that time, Pankajbhai was away from the car and was busy on a phone call and when he came back, he noticed his laptop and bag were missing and took help of motorcycle but, was not able to catch the thief. The aforesaid incident was reported to the police. The FIR was lodged at Kapodara police station against the unknown persons. The petitioner - insurance company was also informed. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance company. A survey report assessing net loss of Rs.20 lacs was submitted. The respondents herein lodged the claim with the insurance company for stolen laptop and diamond and jewelry bag. The petitioner – insurance company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.04.2009. The relevant part of the repudiation letter reads thus:- “1. theft or disappearance of property hereby insured from road vehicles of every description owned, hired by or under the control of the insured and/or their partners, servants, agents or representatives where such vehicle are left unoccupied. 2. The petitioner – insurance company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.04.2009. The relevant part of the repudiation letter reads thus:- “1. theft or disappearance of property hereby insured from road vehicles of every description owned, hired by or under the control of the insured and/or their partners, servants, agents or representatives where such vehicle are left unoccupied. 2. the insured shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the property as regards, selection and supervision of employees securing all doors and windows and other means of entrance or exit otherwise and shall not withdraw or vary the protection and/or safeguards as are referred to in the proposal form to the detriment of the interest of the company without its consent. 3. the policy shall be void and all premium paid hereon shall be forfeited by the company in the event of mis-representation, mis-description or non-disclosure of any material particulars. 4. the insured shall use due diligence and do and concur in doing everything reasonably practicable to avoid or diminish any loss under the policy. 5. you have not acted as a prudent uninsured. In view of above, we hereby repudiate our liability and close the file as no claim. In case you have any grievance you may please contact our grievance cell Surat Regional Office Floor, Tirupati Plaza, Nanpura, Surat.” 2.1. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim on 29.04.2009, the respondents – original complainants filed a complaint before the SCDRC being Consumer Complaint No.09 of 2010 with the following prayers:- “a. To pass the order against the opponent to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainants with 15% interest from the date of incident 11.02.2008 i.e. Rs.5,76,980/- with regards to stolen gold and diamond studded ornaments as stated in annexure A. In all Rs.25,76,980/- with 15% interest from the date incident. b. To pass the order against the opponent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of physical and mental harassment, annoyance, hardships, unfair trade practice as well as deficiency of service. c. The cost of this complaint may pleased be reimbursed from opponent. d. To order opponent to satisfy the order of this State Commission within 30 days from the date of order. e. Any other addition relief in favour of complainant may pleased be order.” 2.2. c. The cost of this complaint may pleased be reimbursed from opponent. d. To order opponent to satisfy the order of this State Commission within 30 days from the date of order. e. Any other addition relief in favour of complainant may pleased be order.” 2.2. The petitioner – insurance company contested the said claim by filing written statement, mainly on the ground that the SCDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is not maintainable. 2.3. It is further the case of the petitioner – company that Mr.Pankaj Zaveri and his nephew Mr.Riddhesh Zaveri, partners of M/s. K.P. Jewelers, were traveling in an Innova car bearing registration no.GJ-5-CH-8808, driven by Kishanbhai @ Ashok Sitaram Tandelkar. They stopped at a gas station near Nana Varacha CNG pump in Surat to refill the gas and Kishan @ Ashok Sitaram got down from the car, opened the bonnet to fill the CNG, was bending putting his hand on the car at the front side while, Mr.Pankajbhai stepped out and was engaged on a phone call, slightly away from the car. After refueling, Kishan @ Ashok Sitaram was checking the car’s coolant and oil, while Riddheshbhai went to settle the gas bill. Meanwhile, Pankajbhai was still on a phone call and moved away from the car. 2.4. It is the case of the complainants that during the said period, someone removed the bag containing jewelry kept in the car. 2.5. The petitioner - insurance company contested the claim on the ground that the car was unattended by all three individuals and theft occurred during this unattended period and leaving the vehicle unattended, absolved the insurance company of any liability as per the policy stipulations. 2.6. The SCDRC, after hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order:- “a. The complaint no.09 of 2010 is partly allowed. b. The complainants are entitled to recover Rs.20 lakhs with interest of 9% from the opponents. c. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10 lakhs under the head of mental agony and harassment.” 2.7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SCDRC, the insurance company filed an appeal being First Appeal No.2428 of 2017 before the NCDRC. 2.8. The Appellate Authority considered the submissions advanced by the respective parties. c. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10 lakhs under the head of mental agony and harassment.” 2.7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SCDRC, the insurance company filed an appeal being First Appeal No.2428 of 2017 before the NCDRC. 2.8. The Appellate Authority considered the submissions advanced by the respective parties. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant – insurance company vehemently argued that the complainants had left the bag containing jewellery unattended in the car and they failed to exercise reasonable caution, which amounts to gross negligence on the part of the complainants. It was also the case of the insurance company that aforesaid is violative of the terms and conditions of the policy, more particularly, clause 1 and 5, which expressly state that the company will not be liable under the policy, if the incident contradicts the terms and conditions of the policy. 2.9. Considering the aforesaid and the survayor’s report placed on record by the insurance company, the Appellate Authority modified the order passed by the SCDRC to the extent that the insurance company shall pay Rs.20 lacs with compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 29.04.2009 till the date of payment to the complainants within eight weeks. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal came to be disposed of. 2.10. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the impugned judgment dated 01.01.2024 passed by the NCDRC in First Appeal No.2428 of 2017 and, in turn, to quash and set aside the judgment dated 09.10.2017 passed by the SCDRC. 3. Heard Ms.Dimple Thaker, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Manan Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 on caveat. 4. Ms.Thaker, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities are contrary to the facts and record of the case and against the settled principles of law and in view thereof, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 4.1. 4. Ms.Thaker, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities are contrary to the facts and record of the case and against the settled principles of law and in view thereof, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 4.1. Ms.Thaker, learned advocate submits that both the authorities have failed to appreciate that although, the vehicle contained valuables, the same was left unattended by all the three individuals and in light of the aforesaid, she placed reliance on the affidavits filed by Pankajbhai Chandrakant Zaveri, driver – Ashok @ Kishan Sitaram Tandelkar and Riddhesh Zaveri. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that all the statements are made by the respondents on their own by way of affidavits, which clearly show that the respondents have deliberately left the car unattended and the same is not appreciated by the competent authority, though the said affidavits were forming part of the record before the competent authorities. 4.2. It is submitted that in all the affidavits filed by all the three persons, who were travelling in the car, they themselves have admitted that they left the car unattended and unoccupied, in spite of the valuables in the car. It is submitted that the said affidavits are very crucial and important piece of document and the same were very much required to be considered while deciding the claim of the respondents. 4.3. It is submitted that the insurance being the contract between two parties upon agreed terms and conditions, if either of the parties fails to act upon the agreed terms and conditions, the contract shall turn void. 4.4. Ms.Thaker, learned advocate placing reliance on the repudiation letter, submits that the aforesaid is given a go-bye by the competent authorities whereby, clearly, the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the contract. 4.5. Ms.Thaker, learned advocate submits that the respondents herein having left the car unattended, the same falls within the purview of exception for considering the claim of the Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy. 4.5. Ms.Thaker, learned advocate submits that the respondents herein having left the car unattended, the same falls within the purview of exception for considering the claim of the Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the respondents herein fall within the exception i.e. clause 5 and the petitioner shall not be liable under the said policy wherein, clause 5 provides that theft or disappearance of property hereby insured from road vehicles of every description owned hired by or under the control of the insured and/or their partners servants, agents or representatives where such vehicle are left unoccupied. It is reiterated that when the vehicle in question was left unoccupied, the exception in the policy would come into play. The respondents herein are not eligible for the benefit of the Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy for which, the respondents were insured. 4.6. It was lastly submitted that the respondents also misrepresented and failed to show due diligence to see and avoid the law and have not acted as prudent uninsured. 5. Mr.Manan Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, at the outset, placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported in AIR 2022 SC 422 . Placing reliance on the same, it was submitted that the High Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, does not act as a Court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which, the determination under challenge is based. 5.1. On merits of the matter, Mr.Shah, learned advocate submits that while passing the impugned order, the competent authority has thoroughly considered the respondents’ complaint lodged before the petitioner on theft having occurred, when the respondents were travelling in their Innova car bearing registration no.GJ-5-CH-8808, driven by a driver - Kishanbhai @ Ashok Sitaram Tandelkar along with the jewelries, which was kept in the car and they went to the CNG pump in Surat near Nana Varachha to fill up the gas. Mr.Shah, learned advocate submits that driver- Kishanbhai @ Ashok Sitaram Tandelkar got down from the car and opened the bonnet to fill the CNG in the cylinder and was bending himself putting his hands on the car at the front side and Mr.Pankajbhai also got down from the car from one side and was standing by the side of the car, talking on his mobile phone and went slightly away from the car. After the gas was filled up, driver was checking coolant, oil and water. Riddheshbhai went to settle the gas bill and Mr.Pankajbhai was still talking on the mobile phone and went few steps away from the car. During that time, somebody took away the bag that was lying in the car containing jewelry. 5.2. It is submitted that the aforesaid factual position was considered by the competent authority whereby, the learned SCDRC, considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates, accepted the complaint filed by the respondents herein, holding that the complainants are entitled to recover the amount of Rs.20 lacs with interest @ 9% and that, the complainants are also entitled to get Rs.10 lacs under the head of mental agony and harassment. Mr.Shah, learned advocate submitted that the learned SCDRC arrived at the finding of fact that the incident had taken place in front of the eyes of the respondents and the theft of laptop and ornaments has taken place and considering the aforesaid, the insurance company is bound to reimburse the amount to the complainants. As per the surveyor’s report, the theft was more than Rs.33 lacs but, the insurance claimed is to the tune of Rs.20 lacs and, therefore, the respondents were held to be entitled to the amount of Rs.20 lacs from the petitioner – insurance company with interest @ 9% and also to get Rs.10 lacs under the head of mental agony and harassment. 5.3. Mr.Shah, learned advocate submitted that the appellate authority i.e. NCDRC, in First Appeal No.2428 of 2017, also considered the contentions raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and relied upon the surveyor’s report, which categorically gives opinion that the vehicle was not left unattended during the incident. The appellate authority held that the surveyor of the petitioner – insurance company has certified that the loss of theft reported and claimed by the inured is covered under the policy. The appellate authority held that the surveyor of the petitioner – insurance company has certified that the loss of theft reported and claimed by the inured is covered under the policy. It is also certified in the report that the vehicle could not be safe to be unoccupied just because all the three occupants of the car were outside the car, engaged in the activities relating to attending the car, necessarily required in filling of the gas and business. It is also opined that the item no.5 of the exclusions is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The appellate authority, while passing the impugned order, held that besides reiterating that the car was left unattended, no additional evidence was presented to counter the opinion of the surveyor, appointed by the petitioner – insurance company. 5.4. In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the competent authorities had arrived at concurrent findings of fact in favour of the respondents whereby, it is concurrently held that it cannot be interpreted that the vehicle was left unoccupied and the surveyor appointed by the petitioner – insurance company has categorically mentioned that the loss of theft reported and claimed by the inured is covered under the policy. 5.5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that this Court may not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following emerge:- a. The respondent no.1 has availed the insurance policy being Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy bearing No.230400/46/07/45/00000038 with a validity from 09.05.2007 to 08.05.2008 for the sum of Rs.20 lacs. On 11.03.2008, at about 11:30 hrs., when the son of uncle of respondent no.2, one Pankajbhai Chandrakant Zaveri, Kalpeshbhai Pravinchandra Jhaveri and Riddheshbhai Jhaveri were travelling in their Innova car bearing no.GJ-05-CH-8808 driven by driver – Kishanbhai @ Ashok Sitaram Tandelkar, carrying laptop of Acer company in the leather bag of Acer company, keeping 71 pieces of diamond studded ornaments and when they stopped at about 12:15 hrs. near Nana Varachha to fill up the CNG gas, the theft occurred. Driver - Kishanbhai was checking the car’s coolant and oil and Riddheshbhai went to settle the gas bill whereas, Pankajbhai was few steps away and still talking on phone and during this period, the bag containing jewelry, kept in the car, was stolen. near Nana Varachha to fill up the CNG gas, the theft occurred. Driver - Kishanbhai was checking the car’s coolant and oil and Riddheshbhai went to settle the gas bill whereas, Pankajbhai was few steps away and still talking on phone and during this period, the bag containing jewelry, kept in the car, was stolen. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents herein filed a complaint before the petitioner - insurance company, which came to be repudiated by the insurance company on 29.04.2009, as referred above. b. Being aggrieved by the said repudiation, the respondents approached the SCDRC whereby, the complaint of the respondents came to be partly allowed and the respondents were held to be entitled to recover an amount of Rs.20 lacs with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs under the head of mental agony and harassment. c. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the SCDRC, the petitioner approached NCDRC whereby, the appeal came to be disposed of and award of compensation of Rs.10 lacs for mental agony and harassment, passed by the SCDRC, was not accepted and compensation of Rs.20 lacs with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 29.04.2009 till the date of payment to the complainants within a period of 8 weeks, was ordered. 7. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of surveyor’s report, which reads thus:- “(vii). Thus the loss by theft reported and claimed by the insured is covered by the policy. On studying the printed exclusions under the policy conditions doubt may arise whether item 5 of the exclusion is applicable or not and it has become necessary to critically examine the same. Item 5 of the exclusions read. “Theft or disappearance of property hereby insured from road vehicles of every description owned hired by or under the control of the insured and/or their partners servants, agents or representatives where such vehicles are left unoccupied’. However, the wordings “Vehicles are left unoccupied” has not been defined or explained unambiguously. (viii). Item 5 of the exclusions read. “Theft or disappearance of property hereby insured from road vehicles of every description owned hired by or under the control of the insured and/or their partners servants, agents or representatives where such vehicles are left unoccupied’. However, the wordings “Vehicles are left unoccupied” has not been defined or explained unambiguously. (viii). The wordings “Vehicles are left unoccupied” means and is understood to mean and is to be interpreted to mean in that sense when the vehicle is left without the attendance or attention of the driver or the occupants or without the intention to move on a journey and left unoccupied without any one on and nearby abandoning the vehicle; whereas in the instant case we do not find any intent or conduct on the part of the driver and the occupants to leave the vehicle and exited for a different purpose. It is more so, when the driver was attending upon the vehicle necessarily required to fill up the gas at the gas station to continue the journey for the business purposes. It cannot be construed that the vehicle was left unoccupied. (ix) It is undoubtedly clear that at the time of theft from the car, while filling gas at a CNG Filling station, on their journey to Vadodara, the vehicle was occupied by a) Mr.Pankaj C. Jhaveri, Partner of the Insured (b) Mr.Riddish A. Jhaveri, Marketing Executive of the Insured and nephew of Mr.Pankaj C. Jhaveri and (c) Mr.Kishanbhai, Driver of the Insured. In the gas filling station, there were people present; the Driver Mr.Kishanbhai was attending to the filling of gas at the front side of the car and Partner Mr.Pankaj C. Jhaveri exited the car was well within vicinity and attention on the car engaged in the mobile phone business conversation and Mr.Riddish Jhaveri exited the car was well within the vicinity and attention on the car paying the gas bill and Driver & the occupants are all intended to be back to the car to continue the journey to Vadodara for their business and in that few seconds the theft had taken place sneakily and stealthily, which is an unexpected, unfortunate and fortuitous event. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be and should not be interpreted that the ‘Vehicle was left unoccupied’ just because all the three occupants of the car were out of the car engaged in activities related to attending the car necessarily required in filling of gas and business. Without any prejudice to the rights of the Insurer’s to accept / or reject the liability under the subject in part or in full. We have submitted the facts of the case for the Insurer’s to take a decision commensurate to the facts. However, we are of the opinion that Item 5 of the exclusions is not applicable to this case.” 8. On perusal of the said report, it emerges that the loss by a theft, which is reported and claimed by the insured, is covered by the policy. Since the claim was repudiated under item no.5, as referred above, as per the the surveyor’s report, it cannot be interpreted that the vehicle was left unoccupied. 9. Having considered the aforesaid explanation, the said report further clarifies that at the time of theft from the car, while filling gas at a CNG filling station, on their journey to Vadodara, the vehicle was occupied by Pankajbhai Chandrakant Jhaveri, Riddheshbhai Jhaveri and driver – Kishanbhai @ Ashok Sitaram Tandelkar. At the gas filling station, people were present. The driver was attending filling of gas at the front side of the car, Pankajbhai Jhaveri exited the car, was well within the vicinity and attention on the car, engaged on the mobile phone regarding business conversation and Riddheshbhai Jhaveri went to pay the gas bill. The driver and occupants all went back to the car to continue their journey to Vadodara and in few seconds, the theft took place sneakily and stealthily. It is opined that it cannot be interpreted that the vehicle was left unoccupied, just because all the three occupants of the car were engaged in the activities relating to attending the car, necessarily required in filling of gas and business. The report also opines that item no.5 of the exclusions is not applicable to the present case. 10. Having considered the aforesaid findings arrived at by the competent authorities, at this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Garment Craft. Paragraph 18 of the said reads thus:- “18. The report also opines that item no.5 of the exclusions is not applicable to the present case. 10. Having considered the aforesaid findings arrived at by the competent authorities, at this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Garment Craft. Paragraph 18 of the said reads thus:- “18. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 11. In light of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the competent forums have concurrently passed the impugned orders dated 01.01.2024 and 09.10.2017, taking into consideration the material on record and contentions raised by the respective parties and held in favour of the respondents – original complainants. Further, the surveyor’s report categorically opines that the vehicle was not left unattended and that, the exclusion under clause no.5 is not applicable in the facts of the present case. No other evidence is placed on record before the competent forums. 12. In the interest of justice, this Court has also considered the affidavits filed by respondents - Pankajbhai Chandrakant Jhaveri, Riddheshbhai Jhaveri and driver – Kishanbhai @ Ashok Sitaram Tandelkar. On perusal of the same, no case is made out for interference in the impugned orders passed by the competent forums. The aforesaid affidavits, in the opinion of this Court, do not come to the rescue of the petitioner herein, for this Court to take a different view. On perusal of the same, no case is made out for interference in the impugned orders passed by the competent forums. The aforesaid affidavits, in the opinion of this Court, do not come to the rescue of the petitioner herein, for this Court to take a different view. The aforesaid was also considered in the impugned order passed by the learned SCDRC in paragraph 6. 13. Once the decision making process is just and proper and the same is arrived at concurrently by the competent forums, taking into consideration the material on record and the Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy availed by the respondent no.1 bearing No.230400/46/07/45/00000038 with a validity from 09.05.2007 to 08.05.2008 for a sum of Rs.20 lacs, there is no error of law or jurisdiction committed by the competent forums and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to sit in appeal over the concurrent findings arrived at by the competent forums, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. For the forgoing reasons, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.