9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered 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 copassenger 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... damage attributed solely to the accident on 25.03.2013, and not to the short-circuiting following the accident. 8. Challenging the above referred reasoning and conclusions 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 liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity." of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vests the National Commission with revisionary jurisdiction. It allows the National Commission to invoke the same if the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not given to it by law, or has failed to exercise it at all, or has exercised the same but with illegally or with material irregularity. 12. On a careful scrutiny of the records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce 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 parameters under which a revision may be invoked. If a document has already been considered and rejected by the State Commission, a revision does not lie merely because the National Commission has a different view on the same. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imes free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk. [...]" 18. In TEXCO Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 2023 ) 1 SCC 428, this Court explained the principles of interpreting and applying exclusionary clauses in insurance policy. Condition No. 4 merely prescribed that in the event of any accident, the vehicle shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
