IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) National Commission cannot interfere with pure finding of fact arrived at by District and State Commissions while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
(2) Delay may be condoned if it is properly explained.

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 [Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘National Commission’], 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 Redressal Commission [Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘District Commission’] had allowed the complaint partly, whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘State Commission’] 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 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