Summary
The Supreme Court restored the State Commission's award of the full insured declared value for a car that capsized and later caught fire after the insured left it to rush an injured co-passenger to hospital. The National Commission had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappraising concurrent findings of fact, and the policy condition against leaving a vehicle unattended did not apply in those compelling circumstances.
Issues
- Whether the National Commission, in revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the District and State Commissions.
- Whether Condition No. 4 of the motor policy, barring the vehicle being left unattended after an accident, excluded the damage caused by the later short-circuit and fire.
- Whether the delay in intimating the insurer defeated the claim.
Provisions considered
- Section 21(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Read as confining the National Commission's revisional power to cases where the State Commission exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise a vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity (and, per precedent, gross miscarriage of justice). Since none of these was shown, interference with findings of fact was impermissible. (¶¶ 7, 11, 13, 15, 16)
Held
- The National Commission's revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is limited to the grounds stated in the provision; it cannot disturb pure findings of fact reached by the District and State Commissions merely because it takes a different view, and its order did not identify any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity by the State Commission. (¶¶ 13, 15)
- A revision does not lie merely to re-evaluate evidence already considered and rejected below; the State Commission had examined the surveyor's report and discarded its conclusions (that the vehicle was negligently left unattended and that the insured caused the short-circuit) for want of evidence, and no miscarriage of justice was made out. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- A policy condition requiring that a vehicle not be left unattended after an accident without proper precautions is applied by asking whether the insured acted reasonably in the context and circumstances of the accident. The insured, who left to take a gravely injured co-passenger (who later died) to hospital, acted under compelling circumstances and could hardly have prevented a short-circuit in a car lying in a ditch, so Condition No. 4 did not apply. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The burden lay heavily on the insurer to show how the insured's absence led to further damage to the vehicle, and it did not discharge that burden. (¶ 18)
- Delay in intimating the insurer may be condoned where it is properly explained; here the concurrent finding that the delay was justified and not fatal to the claim stood. (¶¶ 12, 19)
Result
Appeals allowed; National Commission's order dated 16.07.2019 set aside and the State Commission's order restored, directing the insurer to pay the full insured declared value of Rs. 5,02,285 with 9% interest from the date of the complaint till realisation; no order as to costs.