SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1202

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Ms. Akanksha Kapoor, Adv. Dr. Joginder Singh Berwal, Adv. Ms. Damyanti Juneja, Adv. Mr. Vijay Mittal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Ms. Divya Jain, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The National Commission cannot interfere with pure findings of fact arrived at by District and State Commissions while exercising revisional jurisdiction. (!) (!) - Delay in intimating the insurer can be condoned if it is properly explained; the State Commission found the delay reasonable and the claim payable on damage due to accident as well as short-circuiting. (!) (!) - The State Commission examined the genuineness of the accident claim via police report and discarded the surveyor’s report for lack of evidence. (!) (!) - The National Commission transgressed its jurisdiction by altering the amount payable, overriding concurrent findings of fact. (!) (!) - Condition No. 4 of the policy disallows claims for damage due to short-circuiting if caused by leaving the vehicle unattended; the Court disapproved the National Commission’s application of this condition to exclude short-circuiting damages. (!) (!) - The Court restored the State Commission’s order directing payment of the entire insured declared value of Rs. 5,02,285/- with 9% interest. (!)

What is the scope of the National Commission's revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in relation to pure findings of fact by District and State Commissions?

What is the Court's ruling on whether delay in intimation to the insurer can be condoned or fatal to a claim, and how does this affect liability for the full insured sum?

What is the Court's position on the interpretation and application of Condition No. 4 of the insurance policy regarding damage due to short-circuiting when the vehicle was left unattended?


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 appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top