https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378540 The revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited to jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity, so concurrent findings are not to be disturbed on mere reappraisal of facts. On the record, the finance company had admitted receipt of the insurance premium through the demand draft, the loan and insurance formed a composite transaction, and the policy was issued only later. The deduction from the loan account did not displace the finding that premium had been received. As risk under Section 64VB(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 could not attach before premium payment, delay in forwarding the amount for policy issuance amounted to deficiency of service and the relief in favour of the complainant was restored. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Apr 2019 18:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378540 The revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited to jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity, so concurrent findings are not to be disturbed on mere reappraisal of facts. On the record, the finance company had admitted receipt of the insurance premium through the demand draft, the loan and insurance formed a composite transaction, and the policy was issued only later. The deduction from the loan account did not displace the finding that premium had been received. As risk under Section 64VB(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 could not attach before premium payment, delay in forwarding the amount for policy issuance amounted to deficiency of service and the relief in favour of the complainant was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378540