Concurrent Finding On Facts, NCDRC Dismisses New India Assurance Co.'S Revision Petition, Directs To Pay Fire Claim

Brief Facts:

M/S M.R. Filling Station (“Complainant”) insured his petrol tanker with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (“Insurance Company”). In a fire accident caused due to a short circuit in the engine, the Complainant's tanker was fully destroyed. The Complainant submitted a claim for the insurance amount immediately to the Insurance Company. The surveyor who was appointed to assess the claim determined Rs. 2,25,000/- as the final amount. However, the Insurance Company raised objections based on the invalidity of the tanker driver's 'Hazardous Goods Carriage Training Certificate' (“Training Certificate”) on the date of the accident. Consequently, the insurance claim was repudiated. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar, Punjab (“District Commission”).

The District Commission allowed the complaint on the basis that the tanker driver's driving license was valid on the date of the accident and the claim was deemed to be admissible under non-standard conditions. It directed the Insurance Company to disburse Rs. 5,74,170/- to the Complainant. The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (“State Commission”). The State Commission concurred with the District Commission's order and upheld Rs. 5,74,170/- as the insurance amount. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”).

The Insurance Company contended that Section 132 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates drivers, dealing in hazardous goods, to carry a valid license under Rule 9, which includes undergoing training and obtaining certification. Under these rules, a specific endorsement is needed to be attached to the driver's license, which was absent in the present case. Further, the District Commission and the State Commission failed to consider the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before reaching their respective conclusions.

Observations of the Commission:

The NCDRC referred to Rubi Chandra Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] and Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577], wherein the Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of NCDRC is limited and can only be exercised in cases involving jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity.

Therefore, the NCDRC did not challenge the facts of the case, which were already determined by the District Commission and the State Commission. After assessing the order and reasoning of the State Commission, the NCDRC found no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in its order. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S M.R. Filling Station

Case No.: Revision Petition No. 2538 of 2018

Advocate for the Petitioner: JPN Shahi and Aastha K.

Advocate for the Respondent: Anand Prakash

Click Here to Read/Download Order