logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 (Cons.) Case No.086 print Preview print Next print
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No : Revision Petition No. NC/RP/246 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Parties : Sunder Yadav Versus Oriental Ins.Co Ltd., Delhi
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Bimlesh Kumar, Advocate (VC) with Vinit, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----
Date of Judgment : 20-03-2026
Head Note :-
CP Act - Section 24 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- IRDA Regulations

2. Catch Words:
- indemnification
- interest
- revision petition
- finality
- consumer complaint
- appeal
- insurance claim

3. Summary:
The complainant filed a revision petition after his claim for indemnification was denied by the insurer for a delayed intimation following a vehicle theft. The District Commission had awarded compensation, which the insurer appealed and lost; the complainant did not appeal the quantum awarded. Relying on Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the court held that the award became final as no appeal was filed against it. Although the complainant argued for interest under IRDA Regulations and case law, the matter of interest was not raised before the District Forum and cannot be reopened in a revision petition under Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. The revision petition has been filed by the complainant whose claim for indemnification had been denied by the insurance company regarding the theft of vehicle. Admittedly the vehicle was insured but was robbed on 20.04.2009 by highway robbers for which a prompt FIR was lodged on the same day. The insurance company was intimated by 30.04.2009 but the claim was denied on the ground that there was a delay of 10 days in intimating the insurance company.

2. The complainant filed Consumer Complaint no.270 of 2011 before the District Commission concerned and the complaint was allowed awarding a sum of Rs.10,92,000/- as well as Rs.8000/- as compensation.

3. The insurance company preferred an appeal against the said order and the same has been dismissed on 20.11.2025.

4. It is an admitted position that the complainant did not prefer any appeal questioning the correctness of the amount of the quantum awarded by the District Commission. Consequently in our considered opinion in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the said award became final. Section 24 of the CP Act, is extracted herein as under:

                          "Finality of orders - "Every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final".

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Haryana Urban Development Authority vs B K Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164 decided on 26.10.2005 and Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 to urge that interest ought to have been paid with additional compensation. To that extent there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law but those were cases were matters were pending and were being contested. In the instant case the complainant did not challenge the order of the District Forum praying for any award of interest or modification of the decree.

6. It is the insurance company which went up in appeal and the appeals stood dismissed.

7. The Complainant has now come up in this revision petition urging that the fora below have failed to award interest to the complainant.

8. On legal principles the complainant may be correct that he was entitled for award of interest keeping in view the IRDA Regulations as well as even otherwise in view of several decisions of this Commission as well as the Apex Court, but in the instant case, the complainant failed to challenge the order of the District Commission. In such circumstances the order attained finality. The limited scope under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not permit us to examine the issue of interest directly in a revision petition once again which is a question of fact. The revision petition therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal