RAJESH KUMAR versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1108, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1108 : 2024 INSC 993
Rajesh Kumar
v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No.(s) 14615-14616 of 2024)
17 December 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant here is the consumer who sought that the respondent-
insurer release the entire insurance amount in his favour. The 
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the 
complaint partly, whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission modified it and allowed the complaint in full. However, 
the National Commission reduced the insurance amount. Whether 
the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by 
interefering with the State Commission’s order. 
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Appellant met with an accident 
and his car turned upside down and fell in ditch – Appellant 
and co-passenger suffered injuries – Appellant felt that 
co-passenger needed immediate attention and left the car 
capsized in the ditch – In this state, one of the wires of the car 
caught fire and it got damaged substantially – Appellant lodged 
FIR – Surveyor assessed that the damage was occurred due 
to the appellant’s omission to take care of the vehicle – The 
State Commission allowed the complaint in full, however, the 
National Commission reduced the insurance amount:
Held: On a careful scrutiny of the records of the case, it is seen that 
both the District and State Commissions had reached a concurrent 
finding about
whether the delay in intimation to the respondent was 
justified – Both held that this delay was justifiable and not fatal to the 
insurance claim – Both the courts had also reached the finding that 
the damage took place in two phases: (a) once when the vehicle 
fell into a ditch and capsized; and (b) when the short-circuiting 
took place due to the car remaining in that state – The National 
Commission could not have interfered with pure finding of fact arrived 
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1109
Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
at by the District 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 – 
In the present case, no miscarriage of justice is made out by the 
respondent – The State Commission has addressed all the issues 
raised before it and found the delay in intimation to be reasonable 
and that the insurance claim is payable on the damage due to the 
accident as well as the short-circuiting – The State Commission also 
examined the genuineness of the accident’s claim by considering 
the police report and discarded the surveyor’s report for lack of 
evidence – It then directed the respondent to pay the entire insured 
sum giving its reasons for the same – Hence, the appellant is 
correct in stating that the National Commission has transgressed its 
jurisdiction by interefering with the State Commission’s order – As 
far as appellant’s omission to take care of the vehicle is concerned, 
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 co-passenger 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 – 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 of the vehicle and that burden heavily lies on 
the respondent and the same was not discharged – Therefore, the 
impugned judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision 
Petition is set aside and the judgment of the State Commission is 
restored. [Paras 12, 16, 18]
Case Law Cited
Momna Gauri v. Scooter India Ltd. (2014) 13 SCC 307; Rubi 
Chandra Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011] 3 SCR 
977 : (2011) 11 SCC 269; Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of 
India & Ors. [2022] 1 SCR 258 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77; Rajiv 
Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd. [2022] 11 SCR 213 : 
(2022) 9 SCC 31; TEXCO Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General 
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022] 9 SCR 1031 : (2023) 1 SCC 428; National 
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishar Das Madan Lal [2007] 2 SCR 1014 :
1110
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(2007) 4 SCC 105; Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance & 
Anr. [2017] 11 SCR 893 : (2017) 9 SCC 724 – referred to.
List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
List of Keywords
Motor Vehicle Accident claim; Revisional Jurisdiction; Material 
irregularity; Lack of evidence. 
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14615-14616 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2019 of the National 
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 
878 and 879 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Avinash Sharma, Ms. Akanksha Kapoor, Advs. for the Appellant.
Abhishek Kumar, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Advs. for the 
Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
The present appeals challenge the order dated 16.07.2019 in Revision 
Petition Nos. 878-879/2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Commission,1 which had allowed the respondent’s appeal 
and reduced the amount of payable insurance. The appellant here 
is the consumer who sought that the respondent-insurer release the 
entire insurance amount in his favour. The District Consumer Disputes 
1	
 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘National Commission’.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1111
Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Redressal Commission2 had allowed the complaint partly, whereas 
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3 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 01.07.2013 and it served to compensate the appellant in case 
the insured vehicle met with an accident. The maximum sum that 
could be claimed from the respondent was the ‘Insured Declared 
Value’, which was fixed at Rs. 5,02,285/-. While this policy was in 
force, the appellant met with an accident on 25.03.2013 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 co-passenger 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 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 co-passenger and that, by itself,cannot be 
fatal to the insurance claim. The Commission also found that the 
2	
 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘District Commission’.
3	
 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘State Commission’.
1112
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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., Rs. 3,76,713/-. 
6.	
Aggrieved, both the parties filed cross-appeals before the State 
Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal of the 
appellant fully and directed the release of the entire insured sum of 
Rs. 5,02,285/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint 
till actual realization.
7.	
The insurance company, the respondent herein, filed a revision 
petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
before the National Commission. By the order impugned before us, 
the National Commission partly allowed the appeal and reduced the 
insurance amount to just Rs. 53,543/-.While upholding the findings of 
the District and State Commissions to be correct in finding the delay 
in intimation not being fatal and also that the claim of the accident 
was promptly reported to the police, the Commission,however 
proceeded to rely on Condition no. 4 of the policy to reduce the 
insurance payable. As per
Condition No.4, the vehicle could not 
have been left unattended by an insured and if further damage is 
done because the vehicle is unattended and proper precaution is 
not taken, then claim is beyond the insurance cover. In the facts of 
the case, the commission came to the conclusion that the damage 
due to the short-circuiting was ‘damage following the accident’ and 
caused squarely due to the vehicle being unattended. Hence, it 
held that the damage due to short-circuiting was not payable and 
the only amount that needed to be paid by the respondent was the 
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.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1113
Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
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.,4 and Rubi Chandra Dutta v. 
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.5 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 the vehicle was left exposed to further damage for 
a period of three days. He would therefore submit that interference 
in the revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent findings is fully 
justified. He also argued that the National Commission correctly 
applied Condition No. 4 of the policy in excluding the damage caused 
by the short-circuiting. 
11.	 Analysis: We have given the matter our anxious consideration and 
considered the submissions of both the sides
carefully. Section 21(b)6 
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.
4	
(2014) 13 SCC 307
5	
[2011] 3 SCR 977 : (2011) 11 SCC 269
6	
“21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.— 
Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction— 
(a) to entertain— 
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds 
rupees one crore; and 
(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and 
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate 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.”
1114
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
12.	 On a careful scrutiny of the records of the case, it is seen that 
both the District and State Commissions had reached a concurrent 
finding about whether the delay in intimation to the respondent was 
justified. Both held that this delay was justifiable and not fatal to the 
insurance claim. Both the courts had also reached the finding that 
the damage took place in two phases: (a) once when the vehicle 
fell into a ditch and capsized; and (b) when the short-circuiting took 
place due to the car remaining in that state.
13.	 In our opinion, the National Commission could not have interfered with 
pure finding of fact arrived at by the District 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.
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.,7 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 Sales & Services Ltd.,8 it was laid down thatin cases where 
the courts below have reached findings on facts, the jurisdiction of 
revision is very limited and must be invoked only when there is a 
7	
[2022] 1 SCR 258 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77
8	
[2022] 11 SCR 213 : (2022) 9 SCC 31
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1115
Rajesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
patent illegality in the findings. In Rubi Chandra (supra) it was held 
that even if no patent error, the revisional jurisdiction may be invoked 
in a case of gross miscarriage of justice. 
16.	 In the present case, no miscarriage of justice is made out by the 
respondent. The State Commission has addressed all the issues 
raised before it and found the delay in intimation to be reasonable 
and that the insurance claim is payable on the damage due to the 
accident as well as the short-circuiting. The State Commission also 
examined the genuineness of the accident’s claim by considering the 
police report and discarded the surveyor’s report for lack of evidence.
It then directed the respondent to pay the entire insured sum giving 
its reasons for the same. Hence, the appellant is correct in stating 
that the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by 
interefering with the State Commission’s order.
17.	 The approach of the State Commission is also correct in interpreting 
and disapplying Condition no. 4 of the insurance policy. Condition 
No.4 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“ […]
4. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard 
the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in 
efficient condition and the company shall have at all times 
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.,9 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 not 
be left unattended without proper precaution being taken. While 
9	
[2022] 9 SCR 1031 : (2023) 1 SCC 428
1116
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 co-passenger 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 of the vehicle and that burden 
heavily lies on the respondent and the same was not discharged.10
19.	 As regards the delay in intimation is concerned, we may refer to the 
decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance 
& Anr.,11 where it was held that the delay may be condoned if it is 
properly explained.
20.	 Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, we allow the present
appeals and set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2019 passed 
by the National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 878-879/2019 
and restore the judgment and order of the State Commission 
directing the insurer to release the entire insured declared value of 
Rs. 5,02,285/- to the appellant with 9% interest from the date of the 
consumer complaint till the date of realization.
21.	 There shall be no order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
10	
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishar Das Madan Lal, (2007) 4 SCC 105
11	
[2017] 11 SCR 893 : (2017) 9 SCC 724