Holding

The National Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with the factual findings of the State Commission and its order is set aside, restoring the State Commission’s award of the full insured amount.

Summary

The appellant, Rajesh Kumar, suffered a motor vehicle accident in which his car overturned and later caught fire due to short‑circuiting while he was attending to an injured co‑passenger. He claimed the full insured sum under his policy, but the insurer denied part of the claim, citing delay in intimation and the vehicle being left unattended. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed 75% of the claim, the State Commission later awarded the entire sum, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reduced the award to the surveyor’s valuation of Rs. 53,543. The Supreme Court examined whether the National Commission had jurisdiction to overturn the State Commission’s factual findings under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It held that the National Commission cannot interfere with pure factual determinations made by the lower commissions and found no material irregularity in the State Commission’s order. Consequently, the Court set aside the National Commission’s revision and restored the State Commission’s award of the full insured amount with interest.

Issues considered

Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with the State Commission's factual findings.
Whether the delay in intimation by the appellant is fatal to the insurance claim.
Whether Condition No.4 of the insurance policy can be invoked to exclude damage caused by short‑circuiting after the accident.
Whether a revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is permissible when the lower commission’s findings are not patently illegal.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 21(b)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The appellant here is the consumer who sought that the respondent- insurer release the entire insurance amount in his favour. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the complaint partly, whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal allowed the complaint in full. However, the National Commission reduced the insurance amount. Whether the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by interefering with the State Commission’s order. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Appellant met with an

Subjects

Motor Vehicle Accident claimRevisional JurisdictionMaterial irregularityLack of evidenceInsurance policy interpretationConsumer Protection Act

Judgment

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1108 : 2024 INSC 993

Rajesh Kumar
v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No.(s) 14615-14616 of 2024)
17 December 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The appellant here is the consumer who sought that the respondent-
insurer release the entire insurance amount in his favour. The
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the
complaint partly, whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission modified it and allowed the complaint in full. However,
the National Commission reduced the insurance amount. Whether
the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by
interefering with the State Commission’s order.

Headnotes†
Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Appellant met with an accident
and his car turned upside down and fell in ditch – Appellant
and co-passenger suffered injuries – Appellant felt that
co-passenger needed immediate attention and left the car
capsized in the ditch – In this state, one of the wires of the car
caught fire and it got damaged substantially – Appellant lodged
FIR – Surveyor assessed that the damage was occurred due
to the appellant’s omission to take care of the vehicle – The
State Commission allowed the complaint in full, however, the
National Commission reduced the insurance amount:
Held: On a careful scrutiny of the records of the case, it is seen that
both the District and State Commissions had reached a concurrent
finding about whether the delay in intimation to the respondent was
justified – Both held that this delay was justifiable and not fatal to the
insurance claim – Both the courts had also reached the finding that
the damage took place in two phases: (a) once when the vehicle
fell into a ditch and capsized; and (b) when the short-circuiting
took place due to the car remaining in that state – The National
Commission could not have interfered with pure finding of fact arrived

* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1109

Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

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 –
In the present case, no miscarriage of justice is made out by the
respondent – The State Commission has addressed all the issues
raised before it and found the delay in intimation to be reasonable
and that the insurance claim is 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 – As
far as appellant’s omission to take care of the vehicle is concerned,
the facts of the present case are 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 – It is not disputed that the co-passenger had also
succumbed to the injury – It is also difficult to imagine that how he
could have prevented short-circuiting of the vehicle which had fallen
into a ditch – In any event, the respondent has not explained as to
how the unavailability of the appellant during the said period has
led to further damage of the vehicle and that burden heavily lies on
the respondent and the same was not discharged – Therefore, the
impugned judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision
Petition is set aside and the judgment of the State Commission is
restored. [Paras 12, 16, 18]

Case Law Cited
Momna Gauri v. Scooter India Ltd. (2014) 13 SCC 307; Rubi
Chandra Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011] 3 SCR
977 : (2011) 11 SCC 269; Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of
India & Ors. [2022] 1 SCR 258 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77; Rajiv
Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd. [2022] 11 SCR 213 :
(2022) 9 SCC 31; TEXCO Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022] 9 SCR 1031 : (2023) 1 SCC 428; National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishar Das Madan Lal [2007] 2 SCR 1014 :
1110 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(2007) 4 SCC 105; Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance &
Anr. [2017] 11 SCR 893 : (2017) 9 SCC 724 – referred to.

List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

List of Keywords
Motor Vehicle Accident claim; Revisional Jurisdiction; Material
irregularity; Lack of evidence.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14615-14616
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2019 of the National
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No.
878 and 879 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Avinash Sharma, Ms. Akanksha Kapoor, Advs. for the Appellant.
Abhishek Kumar, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Advs. for the
Respondent.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the order dated 16.07.2019 in Revision
Petition Nos. 878-879/2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission,1 which had allowed the respondent’s appeal
and reduced the amount of payable insurance. The appellant here
is the consumer who sought that the respondent-insurer release the
entire insurance amount in his favour. The District Consumer Disputes

1 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘National Commission’.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1111

Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Redressal Commission2 had allowed the complaint partly, whereas
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3 modified it
and allowed the complaint in full. The respondent then approached
the National Commission, resulting in the impugned order. The brief
facts required for the disposal of these appeals are as follows.
3. The appellant had purchased a Private Car Insurance Policy bearing
Policy No. 420503/31/12/6100000851 from the respondent for a
vehicle he owned. This policy was applicable for the period 02.07.2012
to 01.07.2013 and it served to compensate the appellant in case
the insured vehicle met with an accident. 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 on 25.03.2013 while he
was driving the said vehicle and a cow suddenly turned up before
it. In an attempt to avoid the animal, he made a sudden turn which
caused his car to turn upside down and fall in a ditch.
4. At the time of the accident, the appellant had a co-passenger along
with him. While both the occupants of the car had suffered some
injuries, the appellant felt that the co-passenger needed immediate
attention. 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. While the appellant lodged an FIR on the same day,
he wrote to the respondent only on 28.03.2013. The respondent
appointed a surveyor, who 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. Accordingly, the respondent denied the
insurance claim citing delay in the intimation and on having left the
vehicle unattended, exposing it to further damage.
5. The appellant had approached the District Commission claiming
Rs. 5,02,285/- being the insured value of the vehicle. Having
considered the matter in detail, the District Commission held that
the delay in intimating the insurer was caused due to the appellant’s
attempts to rescue his co-passenger and that, by itself,cannot be
fatal to the insurance claim. The Commission also found that the

2 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘District Commission’.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘State Commission’.
1112 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

appellant’s claim was genuine and it is evidenced by prompt reporting
to the police. After a detailed examination, the District Commission
held that even assuming the short-circuiting could have been avoided
by monitoring the vehicle, the appellant would still be entitled to
insurance amount on a non-standard basis, that is, with minimal
deduction. Hence, it partly allowed the complaint by its order dated
09.11.2016 directing the respondent to release 75% of the insurance
amount, i.e., Rs. 3,76,713/-.
6. Aggrieved, both the parties filed cross-appeals before the State
Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal of the
appellant fully and directed the release of the entire insured sum of
Rs. 5,02,285/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint
till actual realization.
7. The insurance company, the respondent herein, filed a revision
petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
before the National Commission. By the order impugned before us,
the National Commission partly allowed the appeal and reduced the
insurance amount to just Rs. 53,543/-.While upholding the findings of
the District and State Commissions to be correct in finding the delay
in intimation not being fatal and also that the claim of the accident
was promptly reported to the police, the Commission,however
proceeded to rely on Condition no. 4 of the policy to reduce the
insurance payable. As per Condition No.4, the vehicle could not
have been left unattended by an insured and if further damage is
done because the vehicle is unattended and proper precaution is
not taken, then claim is beyond the insurance cover. In the facts of
the case, the commission came to the conclusion that the damage
due to the short-circuiting was ‘damage following the accident’ and
caused squarely due to the vehicle being unattended. Hence, it
held that the damage due to short-circuiting was not payable and
the only amount that needed to be paid by the respondent was the
damage attributed solely to the accident on 25.03.2013, and not to
the short-circuiting following the accident.
8. Challenging the above referred reasoning and conclusions of the
National Commission, the appellant filed the present appeals. We
have heard Mr. Avinash Sharma, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
respondent.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1113

Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

9. Mr. Sharma submitted that the National Commission went beyond
the scope of its revisional jurisdiction and relied on the precedents
in Momna Gauri v. Scooter India Ltd.,4 and Rubi Chandra Dutta v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.5 He further submitted that in cases
of insurance pertaining to motor vehicle accidents, the liability of the
insurer must be interpreted strictly.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Ld.Counsel appearing for
the respondent submitted that the National Commission had correctly
exercised its revisional jurisdiction in the present case. He submitted
that the courts below disregarded the survey report, which is patently
erroneous. As for whether the National Commission’s was justified
in interfering with the concurrent findings, he submitted that the
District Commission also found that the vehicle was left unattended
by the appellant however,the State Commission did not answer the
question as to why the vehicle was left exposed to further damage for
a period of three days. He would therefore submit that interference
in the revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent findings is fully
justified. He also argued that the National Commission correctly
applied Condition No. 4 of the policy in excluding the damage caused
by the short-circuiting.
11. Analysis: We have given the matter our anxious consideration and
considered the submissions of both the sides carefully. 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.

4 (2014) 13 SCC 307
5 [2011] 3 SCR 977 : (2011) 11 SCC 269
6 “21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.—
Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds
rupees one crore; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before
or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that
such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a
jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
1114 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12. On a careful scrutiny of the records of the case, it is seen that
both the District and State Commissions had reached a concurrent
finding about whether the delay in intimation to the respondent was
justified. Both held that this delay was justifiable and not fatal to the
insurance claim. Both the courts had also reached the finding that
the damage took place in two phases: (a) once when the vehicle
fell into a ditch and capsized; and (b) when the short-circuiting took
place due to the car remaining in that state.
13. 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.
14. The other ground that the respondent has raised before us is that the
survey report was disregarded by the District and State Commissions
but the National Commission has correctly examined and relied on it.
This submission cannot be accepted, since the State Commission had
examined the survey report in detail and in fact found it to be lacking.
It stated that the surveyor’s claim that the vehicle was left unattended
cannot be accepted since the appellant had justifiable reasons for the
same. Furthermore, the finding of the surveyor that the short-circuiting
was caused by the appellant himself was not based on any evidence.
15. This Court had the occasion to examine the scope and ambit of
jurisdiction of the National Commission while exercising revisional
jurisdiction. In Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India & Ors.,7 it
was held that the conditions laid down in Section 21(b) are the only
parameters under which a revision may be invoked. If a document
has already been considered and rejected by the State Commission,
a revision does not lie merely because the National Commission
has a different view on the same. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla v. Gold
Rush Sales & Services Ltd.,8 it was laid down thatin cases where
the courts below have reached findings on facts, the jurisdiction of
revision is very limited and must be invoked only when there is a

7 [2022] 1 SCR 258 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77
8 [2022] 11 SCR 213 : (2022) 9 SCC 31
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1115

Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

patent illegality in the findings. In Rubi Chandra (supra) it was held
that even if no patent error, the revisional jurisdiction may be invoked
in a case of gross miscarriage of justice.
16. In the present case, no miscarriage of justice is made out by the
respondent. The State Commission has addressed all the issues
raised before it and found the delay in intimation to be reasonable
and that the insurance claim is 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.
17. The approach of the State Commission is also correct in interpreting
and disapplying Condition no. 4 of the insurance policy. Condition
No.4 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“ […]
4. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard
the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in
efficient condition and the company shall have at all times
free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part
thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the
event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall
not be left unattended without proper precautions being
taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle
be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any
extension of the damage or any further damage to the
vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.
[…]”
18. In TEXCO Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co.
Ltd.,9 this Court explained the principles of interpreting and applying
exclusionary clauses in insurance policy. Condition No. 4 merely
prescribed that in the event of any accident, the vehicle shall not
be left unattended without proper precaution being taken. While

9 [2022] 9 SCR 1031 : (2023) 1 SCC 428
1116 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

interpreting such a clause the Court/Commission or Tribunal will
see whether the said obligation has been complied with reasonably
or not. The context in which accident occurs and the circumstances
that prevailed at the time of accident are extremely important to
conclude whether the insured has taken reasonable care or not.
The facts of the present case are 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.
It is not disputed that the co-passenger had also succumbed to the
injury. It is also difficult to imagine that how he could have prevented
short-circuiting of the vehicle which had fallen into a ditch. We are
of the opinion that the State Commission has come to a correct
conclusion that Condition No.4 would not apply in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In any event, the respondent has not
explained as to how the unavailability of the appellant during the
said period has led to further damage of the vehicle and that burden
heavily lies on the respondent and the same was not discharged.10
19. As regards the delay in intimation is concerned, we may refer to the
decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance
& Anr.,11 where it was held that the delay may be condoned if it is
properly explained.
20. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, we allow the present
appeals and set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2019 passed
by the National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 878-879/2019
and restore the judgment and order of the State Commission
directing the insurer to release the entire insured declared value of
Rs. 5,02,285/- to the appellant with 9% interest from the date of the
consumer complaint till the date of realization.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan

10 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishar Das Madan Lal, (2007) 4 SCC 105
11 [2017] 11 SCR 893 : (2017) 9 SCC 724