NCDRC Can't Interfere With Pure Finding Of Fact Arrived At By District & State Commissions While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: SC
The Supreme Court restored an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission granting relief to a consumer and held that the National Commission could not have interfered with pure finding of fact arrived at by the District and State Commissions while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed challenging the order in a Revision Petition passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had allowed the respondent-Insurance Company’s appeal and reduced the amount of payable insurance.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “Section 21(b)6 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vests the National Commission with revisionary jurisdiction. It allows the National Commission to invoke the same if the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not given to it by law, or has failed to exercise it at all, or has exercised the same but with illegally or with material irregularity.”
AOR Avinash Sharma represented the Appellant while AOR Nikhil Jain represented the Respondent.
The appellant had purchased a Private Car Insurance Policy from the respondent for a vehicle he owned. This policy was applicable for the period of 1 year and the maximum sum that could be claimed from the respondent was the ‘Insured Declared Value’, which was fixed at Rs. 5,02,285. While this policy was in force, the appellant met with an accident. In an attempt to avoid an animal while driving, he made a sudden turn which caused his car to fall in a ditch.
The appellant rushed the co-passenger to a hospital, leaving the car capsized in the ditch. In this state, one of the wires in the car short-circuited, which set the car on fire and it was damaged substantially. The appellant lodged an FIR and wrote to the respondent. The respondent appointed surveyor assessed the damage to be Rs. 53,543.97/- but stated that the damage occurred due to the appellant’s omission to take care of the vehicle. The respondent denied the insurance claim citing delay in the intimation and on having left the vehicle unattended, exposing it to further damage. The District Commission held that the delay in intimating the insurer was caused due to the appellant’s attempts to rescue his copassenger and that, by itself, cannot be fatal to the insurance claim.It partly allowed the complaint directing the respondent to release 75% of the insurance amount.
When both the parties filed cross-appeals before the State Commission, the Commission directed the release of the entire insured sum of Rs. 5,02,285 with 9% interest. However, the National Commission partly allowed the revision petition filed by the Insurance Company under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Bench observed that no miscarriage of justice was made out by the respondent. The State Commission had addressed all the issues raised before it and found the delay in intimation to be reasonable and that the insurance claim was payable on the damage due to the accident as well as the short-circuiting. The State Commission also examined the genuineness of the accident’s claim by considering the police report and discarded the surveyor’s report for lack of evidence. It then directed the respondent to pay the entire insured sum giving its reasons for the same.
“Hence, the appellant is correct in stating that the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by interefering with the State Commission’s order”, the Court said.
The Bench also observed, “In our opinion, the National Commission could not have interfered with pure finding of fact arrived at by the District and State Commissions while exercising revisional jurisdiction. It is unclear as to how the National Commission perceived that the State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in. There is nothing to indicate in the decision of the National Commission as to whether there is any illegality in the approach adopted by the State Commission or that it had acted with material irregularity.”
As per the Bench, the approach of the State Commission was also correct in interpreting and disapplying Condition no. 4 of the insurance policy which said that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. The facts of the case were amply clear that the appellant was acting under compelling circumstances when he had to take his co-passenger to a hospital immediately as his condition was precarious.
On the issue of delay reference was made to the judgment in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. (2017) where it was held that the delay may be condoned if it is properly explained.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order of the National Commission and restored the judgment and order of the State Commission directing the insurer to release the entire insured declared value.
Cause Title: Ajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 993)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Avinash Sharma, Advocates Akanksha Kapoor, Dr. Joginder Singh Berwal, Damyanti Juneja, Vijay Mittal
Respondent: AOR Nikhil Jain, Advocates Abhishek Kumar, Divya Jain
