9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. The other ground that the respondent has raised 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. In the present case, no miscarriage of justice is made out by the respondent. The State Commission has addressed all the issues rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 copassenger 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusions 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. 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., (2014) 13 SCC 307 and Rubi Chandra Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 . 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 it was held that the conditions laid down in Section 21(b) are the only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce 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 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 copassenger 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
