Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 756
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
KAILASH DEVI & ANR. – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3596 OF 2016
For the Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Kunal Chatterjee
Insurance companies must honor claims under valid policies, confirmed by concurrent findings of fact by lower forums.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d), 14, 15 - Insurance Claim - The insured party suffered loss due to an accident resulting in an injury that led to eye removal. The petitioner’s appeal against the claim by the District Forum, which had awarded ₹50,000 with interest, was dismissed by the State Commission. The concurrent findings confirmed the insurance company’s obligation to honor the claim based on the validity of the policy. (Paras 5, 9, 10, 12)
(B) Delay in Filing - The revision petition was dismissed due to a 43-day delay which was condoned based on the need for legal advice before proceeding. The courts emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities and reaffirmed the view that minor delays should not bar access to justice. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, Smt. Kailash Devi, while cutting fodder, sustained an eye injury due to a buffalo which led to the insurance claim that was initially not settled by the insurance company. The District Forum allowed the claim amount of ₹50,000 with interest.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found no grounds to interfere with the decisions of the lower fora, confirming the insurance company’s liability for the claim amount as ordered by the District Forum.
Issues: The core issues involved considered the liability of the insurance company for the claim presented by the complainant and the nature of negligence attributed to the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that where concurrent factual findings exist, the revisionary body cannot reassess those facts, and emphasized that claims based on trivial matters should not burden the judicial system unduly.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim due to insurance for personal injury estimated. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. courts affirmed concurrent findings on claim liability. (Para 4 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. arguments on joint liability and delay in filing. (Para 5) |
| 4. revision petition offers limited scope for reassessing facts. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court observed on previous cases and jurisdiction. (Para 8) |
| 6. petition dismissed due to lack of jurisdictional error. (Para 12) |
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP-1, New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 14.07.2016 passed in First Appeal No. 382 of 2009 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (For short, State Commission’) wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum has been upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant, Smt. Kailash Devi had taken an insurance policy styled, “Janta Personal Accident Policy” for sum insured of Rs.1,00,000. During the insurance period, on 14.05.2005, while cutting fodder she was hit by buffalo resulting in injury in the eye. She was brought to the concerned PHC and later on to Nayandeep Eye Research Centre on 15.05.2005 and was discharged on 16.05.2005. Inspite of treatment, her left eye was removed. The insurance claim was filed by the complainant /respondent no.1 which was not settled by the OPs. Hence, the case was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 20.08.2009 has allowed the claim of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum as well as Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 382 of 2009 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2016.
4. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 was also present & heard. Notice was not served to respondent No.1/complainant and the same was dispensed with in the light of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar matter where the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2016 in SLP no.7732 of 2016 New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another , has already observed that it is not necessary to serve the complainant and the Insurance Company to deposit the amount with the District Forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent no.1 was in no way connected with respondent no. 2. Claimant is not an employee of respondent no. 2 & has not filed any proof of agency license/investment certificate/office staff of respondent no. 2. Both the fora below have passed erroneous orders without looking at the objections filled by the petitioner insurance company. It has been further argued that this Commission vide order dated 27.11.2015 in cases involving the similar policy and respondent no.2/GTFS, being the Revision Petition No.3095/2010 as lead case, has held that respondent no.2/GTFS is also negligent, besides holding the Insurance Company liable towards the payment of claim. This Commission has also made the liability as joint and several stating as under:
“We are convinced that these are cases of composite negligence on the part of the Insurance Company and GTFS. It is on account of this composite negligence that the nominees of the insured are suffering. Nevertheless, at this juncture, we do not have sufficient evidence on record to determine the extent of negligence on the part of GTFS so as to bifurcate amounts payable under the policies. Therefore, under the circumstances, we hold that liability to pay the amounts in terms of the order passed by the fora below, to the complainants before us will be joint and several on the Insurance Company and GTFS. It will be open to the complainants to enforce the orders in their favour against both or any of them.”
6. The learned counsel emphasized that on this basis, the order m
