1. Although, in the present case, notice to the respondents was yet to be issued, the respondents were represented through Advocate Mr. Subham Kumar Jain, who submitted that on getting information about the listing of this case, he has voluntarily appeared and he has also filed the vakalatnama.

2. The challenge is to the order dated 30.03.2026 of the state Commission vide which the first appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed and the order of the District Commission was upheld. Earlier, the District Commission vide its order dated 18.02.2021, partly allowed the complaint with the following reliefs to the complainants/ directions to the OP:

                   ****

                   7. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is "Allowed" in part as under:

                   1) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,87,494/- (Rupees one lakh eighty seven thousand four hundred and ninety four only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of repudiation i.e from 27-03-2015 till realization to the complainant.

                   2) The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings of the complaint to the complainant.

                   3) The opposite party is further directed to comply above 1 and 2 directions within forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of this order.

                   ****

3. The claim in question was repudiated by the petitioner Insurance Company vide letter dated 27.03.2015, primarily on the ground that the cause of the fire is spontaneous combustion, which is an exclusive peril as per the policy. The extract of the relevant para of this letter is reproduced below:

                   ****

                   We have once again examined the issue and would like to inform you that your above mentioned claim stands repudiated for the following reasons.

                   As per the surveyor's observation heat is generated from the bottom of the heap which lead to damage to husk. The heat which is generated is due to "Spontaneous combustion" which is an excluded peril as per the policy but not due to "Fire". As per the insurance practice the meaning of fire is "actual burning accompanied by flames". In the instant case, there is no actual burning accompanied by flames.

                   Under the circumstances, we regret to inform you that damage to husk is due to spontaneous combustion which is not covered under the policy.

                   ****

4. Our attention was also drawn to the copy of the policy at page 53 onwards, which lists spontaneous combustion under fire as one of the exclusions.

5. Hence, the only issue in the present case is whether the cause of fire was due to spontaneous combustion or not. It is based on the surveyor's report that the Insurance Company came to such a conclusion. The extract of the relevant paragraph of the surveyor's report concluding that the fire was due to spontaneous combustion is reproduced below:

                   ****

                   11.0 SURVEY:

                   Dunng my visit to the insured premises on 19/07/2014 the Mg. partner Mr. Dheeraj had presented the affected lusap of husk lying in the husk building of thele premises for my inspection /survey. I had taken the measuratments of the husk heap and the average length breadth and height were found as 61, 52 ard 30 respectively. I opine that the heat generated from the bottom of the heap basing en my observation since lumps fonned at Immttom of the heap. If the husk burut due to tire there should be actual ignitwn, the husk will bezonte ash aßei fire, where as only lumps fonned and I conforms that there was no actual igution basing on my observations.

                   Further, in insurance practices, a Fire is defined as "actual beaming accompanied by flames". In this case there was the burning accompanied by flaues. I confun that the husk war damaged due to spontaneous combustion.

                   ****

6. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments (Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ((2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31) revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in cases as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. In the present case, both the fora below have given concurrent findings on the question of fact as to whether the fire was due to spontaneous combustion or not. In this regard, the extract of the relevant paras of the order of the District Commission is reproduced below:

                   ****

                   Coming to the facts of case, no convincing evidence is brought on record by the opposite party to support its case. The surveyor visited the site after 3 days of incident i.e. on 19-07-2014 by that time on 18-07-2014 itself the fire brigade put off the fire by pouring water continuously for 8 hours and prior to that i.e. from 16-07-2014 to 18-07-2014 the complainants were pouring water on husk heap to put off the fire so there was no fire that damaged the husk. By looking at lumps of husk the surveyor came to a conclusion that it is only spontaneous combustion of husk. The surveyor has not discussed the factors effecting spontaneous combustion and failed to prove by leading any evidence showing the weather condition, degree of temperature of the place on that day which could have led to spontaneous combustion. If the insurance policy referred to above is minutely perused, it is seen that it covers all risks of stock i.e. Rice, Paddy, Broken Rice, Rice Bran, Husk, Solvent, Filled & Empty Gunny bags.

                   Hence, in our opinion the damage caused to the husk in the insured's premises in a manner stated is also covered under the said policy and the opposite party cannot repudiate on the ground "No add-on cover for Spontaneous Combustioin". As such the opposite party cannot take benefit of "add-on cover" to the existing policy. It is established by the complainant's evidence and fire brigade observation that the loss is caused to the husk and the surveyor in his report also calculated that 306.1619 Metric Tons husk was damaged.

                   ****              7. The extract of the relevant paragraph of the State Commission is also reproduced below:

                   ****

                   "17. Having carefully examined the whole gamut of the facts we are of the considered view that the damage was caused to the husk in insured premises as such the opposite party cannot repudiate the claim under the policy on the ground "No Add-on cover of spontaneous combustion. Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party cannot take the benefit of "add on cover" on the existing policy. It is established by the complainant's evidence and fire brigade observation that the loss is caused to the husk and the surveyor in his report also calculated that 306.1619 Metric Tons husk was damaged."

                   ****

8. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Commission and other relevant records and heard counsel for both sides. Both the fora below, keeping in view the evidence before them, have passed well-reasoned orders and we find no reason to interfere with their findings. In particular, it is noted that the District Commission has specifically observed that the surveyor visited the site after three days of the incident i.e. on 19.07.2014, by that time on 18.07.2014 itself, the fire brigade put off the fire by pouring water continuously for eight hours, and prior to that, i.e. from 16.07.2014 to 18.07.2014, the complainants were pouring water on husk heap to put off the fire so there was no fire that damaged the husk. The surveyor came to the conclusion that it is only spontaneous combustion of husk. The surveyor has not discussed the factors effecting spontaneous combustion and failed to prove by leading any evidence showing the weather condition, degree of temperature of the place on that day which could have led to spontaneous combustion. We see no illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the State Commission. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld. Consequently, RP/846/2026 is dismissed.

9. All other pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.