NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Indian Acrylics Ltd. – Appellant
versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. – Respondent
Review Application No. 76 of 2025 In First Appeal No. 87 of 2016 With IA No. 6260 of 2025 (Condonation of Delay)
Decided on 3.12.2025
Consumer Protection – Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Omission of Commencement Date for Interest – NCDRC allowed a Review Application seeking clarification of an earlier order dated 16.01.2024, which had awarded interest at 6% per annum but failed to specify the date from which such interest would commence – Commission held that the omission to mention the start date (the date of filing the complaint) was an inadvertent error apparent on the face of the record – Relying on the Interest Act, 1978 and Supreme Court precedents, the Commission ruled that interest should generally be awarded from the date of the complaint to meet the ends of justice and equity – The delay in filing the review was condoned as the applicant was bona fidely pursuing execution and clarification remedies before the same Commission.
ORDER
IA/6260/2025
This Application has been moved praying for condoning the entire delay in the filing of the Review Application. The background is that on 16.01.2024, First Appeal No. 87 of 2016 that has given rise to this Review Application was allowed with a direction for payment of Rs.64,24,404/- to the Appellants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. In the event of default of payment within the time prescribed the rate of interest would stand enhanced to 9%. The Insurance Company complied with the Order and made the payments but the interest was paid only from the date of the order of this Commission i.e. 16.01.2024.
2. The Appellant filed an Execution Application No. 230 of 2024 contending that the interest should be paid from the date of the filing of the Complaint but the Insurance Company in its reply to the Execution Application contested the matter urging that the interest has only been awarded from the date of the order and not from the date of the filing of the original Complaint. The Bench hearing the Execution Application therefore made an enquiry as to whether any review has been sought or not.
3. The explanation given in Paragraph No.4 of the Application is that since as per the understanding of the Appellant this Commission had impliedly granted the interest to the Appellant from the date of filing of the Complaint, but after contest by the Insurance Company in the Execution proceedings as referred to above, the Review Application has been filed in order to overcome this inadvertent error in the Order dated 16.01.2024, and as such there is no delay inasmuch as the Applicant was pursuing the remedy before this very Commission in the Execution Application.
4. A reply to the said delay condonation Application has been filed and Mr. Bhatt has urged that the delay of 455 days is huge and inordinate and there is no plausible explanation for filing this Review Application belatedly.
5. It is further stated in the Reply that the Appellant had claimed interest from the date of filing of the Complaint after the decision which was replied to by the Insurance Company on 05.04.2024 itself. In the said Reply the Insurance Company made the following statement:—
“We may also like to inform you that we have also sought clarification and we have been informed by our defending counsel that during the proceedings your counsel had strenuously argued for payment of interest from the date of filing the complaint and the same was not considered and the National Commission allowed interest from the date of order which we have already complied with.
“We have clearly given the detailed calculation to you (explained hereinabove again) and please be informed that no further payment is due and the award as per the order of the National Commission is fully satisfied”.
6. Mr. Bhatt therefore submitted that if the said relief was not granted by this Commission and this fact was known to the Applicant in April, 2024 itself, then there was no reason for the Applicant to have waited for more than a year and therefore there is no valid explanation for the delay.
7. He submits that even otherwise the Review is misconceived and not maintainable and the claim of interest is non-admissible.
8. Having considered the submissions raised and perused the affidavits what we find is that the final Order was passed by this Commission on 16.01.2024 and on 15.03.2024 the Insurance Company made the payments and credited an amount of Rs.65,37,768/- but the interest that was included therein @ 6% was only from 16.01.2024 till 15.03.2024, which was for a period of 60 days to the tune of Rs.63,364/-.
9. On receiving this amount the Applicant wrote a letter to the Insurance Company on 26.03.2024 requesting the payment of interest from the date of filing of the Complaint. This was denied by the Insurance Company on 05.04.2024 and the Applicant aggrieved by the said reply moved the Execution Application No. 230 of 2024 before thi
Satinder Singh v. Amrao Singh (1961) 3 SCR 676 : AIR 1961 SC 908. (Para 15)
Bengal Nagpur Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji (1937-38) 65 IA 66 : AIR 1938 PC 67. (Para 15)
Sovintorg (India) Limited v. State Bank of India
Jagdish Rai and Brothers v. Union of India (1999) 3 SCC 257. (Para 23)
LIC of India and Anr. v. S. Sindhu (2006) 5 SCC 258. (Para 24)
(1) Condonation of Delay and bona fide Prosecution – A delay of 455 days in filing the Review Application was condoned because the applicant was actively pursuing the claim through an Execution Appli....
The judgment clarified compensation assessment principles in insurance claims, including salvage deductions and interest for delays.
Review petitions are limited to errors apparent on the record and cannot serve as an appeal to reargue previously decided matters.
The review application was rejected due to failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay and lack of new evidence or errors apparent on the record.
(1) The Surveyor’s Report Threshold: Once a surveyor submits a final report and the insurer accepts it, any further delay in disbursing the funds constitutes a deficiency. The insurer cannot hold ont....
The court retains discretion to impose interest on delayed compensation payments despite extensions granted, reinforcing that terms of prior orders remain in force unless explicitly waived.
Limitation – Condonation of delay – Term “sufficient cause” u/Section 5 of Limitation Act should be liberally construed promote substantial justice, when delays are not due to dilatory tactics, bad f....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.